Case Number: BC632722 Hearing Date: August 24, 2018 Dept: A

Jagasia v Torres

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (6)

Calendar: 2

Case No: BC632722

Hearing Date: 8/24/18

Action Filed: 8/31/16

Trial: Not set

MP:

Plaintiff Radha Jagasia

RP:

Defendants Dago Torres and Mercedes Torres

ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT:

This action arises out of a dog bite that injured Plaintiff Radha Jagasia (“Plaintiff”) on November 15, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Dago Torres and Mercedes Torres (“Defendants”) let their dog run loose and failed to keep the dog in control.

The complaint, filed August 31, 2016, alleges causes of action for: (1) strict liability; and (2) negligence. In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of general, special, actual, and compensatory damages, including medical expenses, lost earnings (past, present, and future), loss of future earning capacity, and mental, emotional, and physical pain and suffering. (See Compl., ¶¶11, 21, Prayer.)

REQUESTED RELIEF:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to: (1) Interrogatories, set three; (2) Request for Production of Documents, set three (“RPD”); and (3) Requests for Admission, set four (“RFA”), against Defendant Mercedes Torres

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to: (1) Interrogatories; (2) RPD; and (3) RFA against Defendant Dago Torres

ANALYSIS:

A. Motions to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, Set Three

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) and Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) from each of Mercedes Torres and Dago Torres. Plaintiff seeks further responses to FROG 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.10, and 17.1; and SROG 65-74.

FROG 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, and 16.10

FROG 16.3 asks if Defendants contend that the injuries claimed by Plaintiff was not caused by the incident. FROG 16.4 asks if Defendants contend that any of the services furnished by any healthcare provider was not due to the incident. FROG 16.5 asks if Defendants contend that any costs of healthcare services in this action were not necessary or unreasonable. FROG 16.10 asks if anyone acting on Defendants’ behalf has documents from healthcare providers concerning Plaintiff’s physical, mental, or emotional condition.

To each of these, Defendant objected on the basis that they were unaware of the full extent of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries. They acknowledge that Plaintiff suffered a laceration on her lip, which needed treatment, but state they do not know the extent and nature of her emotional injuries.

Here, further responses are warranted because Defendants’ answers are incomplete and evasive. (CCP §2030.300.) They are not responsive to the actual interrogatories being asked of each of the Defendants. Further, each of these FROGs include subparts, which Defendants have failed to completely answer. Defendants also have not accompanied the opposition with a separate statement.

The Court notes that an opposition was filed by Defendants, but Defendants’ main arguments are that Plaintiff has failed to set an informal discovery conference and the meet and confer efforts were sparse. While attending an informal discovery conference may have been a requirement in the personal injury courtrooms (where the motions were originally filed), this is not a prerequisite for motions to compel further to be heard in a non-PI Hub courtroom. Also, Plaintiff’s counsel provided his declaration in support of the motions to compel further, wherein he discusses the meet and confer efforts he undertook with defense counsel and attaches the two letters he wrote to defense counsel to informally resolve these matters prior to filing the motions.

As the responses are not fully responsive to interrogatories, the Court will grant the motions to compel further responses to FROG 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, and 16.10.

FROG 17.1

FROG 17.1 asks if Defendants’ responses to each RFA served with the FROGs are an unqualified admissions. If not, the FROG asks Defendants to: (a) state the number of the request, (b) state all facts upon which they base their response, (c) state the contact information of the person with knowledge of these facts, and (d) to identify all documents and other tangible things that support response.

Defendants responded to subpart (a), and objected on the basis that the request was vague as to the word “incident”, lacks foundation, calls for speculation, is overbroad, it is unclear what medical specials Plaintiff is referring to, calls for a medical opinion, and that Defendants cannot deny or admit the RFAs at issue.

Plaintiff argues that further responses are warranted because Defendants failed to provide unqualified admissions to their RFAs, and the response to FROG 17.1 is a copy-and-paste of their objections to the RFAs. Defendants’ responses/objections fail to properly respond to FROG 17.1, which specifically asks for additional information in subparts (a) to (d) where a response is not an unqualified admission. Defendants have not justified their objections or how this FROG is improper.

Accordingly, the Court will grant the motions to compel further responses to FROG 17.1.

SROG 65-74

SROG 65-74 asks questions regarding Defendants’ dog, “Biggie”, such as why he was euthanized (nos. 65-66); why, if, and when their homeowners’ insurance was terminated as a result of the incident (nos. 67-68, 70-72); whether they gave Plaintiff any medication after the incident (no. 69); and who their insurance carrier was at the time of the incident and who it currently is now (nos. 73-74).

Each Defendant objected to these SROG on the basis that they were irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that they are cumulative questions to those asked at Defendants’ depositions.

The information sought regarding Defendants’ dog, their insurance, and how they treated Plaintiff after the incident are relevant to this action and are thus discoverable as they relate to the incident in question and may include additional facts and evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim. Further, Defendants have not substantiated their objections on the ground of irrelevance.

Next, even if the responses were already provided in Defendants’ depositions, this does not preclude Plaintiff from asking these questions by way of written discovery (nor have Defendants pointed out where and when in the depositions/transcripts where such responses were already provided).

The Court will grant the motions to compel further responses to SROG 65-74.

Conclusion

The Court will grant motions to compel further responses to FROG 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.10, and 17.1, and SROG 65-74. Defendants are ordered to each provide responses without objection to these FROG and SROG requests within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the total amount of $1,520.00 ($350/hour for 4 hours, plus $120 in filing fees) for filing these two motions.

B. Motions to Compel Further Responses to RPD, Set Three

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPD from each of Mercedes Torres and Dago Torres. Plaintiff seeks further responses to RPD 63-65.

RPD 63-65 seek documents related to Defendants’ homeowner insurance policy and its termination after the incident. To these requests, Defendants objected that this information was not relevant, and was vague as to the term “incident”.

Again, Defendants have not substantiated their objections, nor have they filed a responsive separate statement. Similar to their opposition to the Interrogatories, Defendants argue there is a lack of meet and confer, and that the parties did not attend an informal discovery conference. However, neither of these arguments have merit as to why Defendants’ objections are proper. Additionally, as discussed above, the meet and confer efforts were adequate and an informal discovery conference is not a prerequisite for these motions to be heard before this Court.

In Plaintiff’s separate statement, she explains that these documents are relevant to the action because Biggie is the subject dog in this action and the incident in question is the reason why Defendants lost their homeowner’s insurance, as identified in Defendants’ depositions. This not only would contain additional information regarding the incident in question, but also may affect Plaintiff’s recovery of damages.

The Court will grant the motions to compel further responses to RPD 63-65. Defendants are ordered to each provide responses without objection to these RPD requests within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the total amount of $820.00 ($350/hour for 2 hours, plus $120 in filing fees) for filing these two motions.

C. Motions to Compel Further Responses to RFA, Set Four

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RFA from each of Mercedes Torres and Dago Torres. Plaintiff seeks further responses to RFA 23-60.

RFA 23-55

The RFAs at issue seek an admission/denial from Defendants regarding Plaintiff’s medical care and expenses and the cause of the injury.

Defendants objected on the basis that the request was vague as to the word “incident” and “you/your/yours”, lacks foundation, calls for speculation, is overbroad, is unclear what medical specials Plaintiff is referring to, and calls for a medical opinion. Defendants responded that they could not deny or admit the RFAs at issue.

Here, Defendants have not justified their objections. Again, in their opposition brief, they argue that the parties did not attend an informal discovery conference and the meet and confer efforts were inadequate. These arguments lack merit for the reasons discussed above. The Court also notes that no responsive separate statement was provided with the opposition.

Defendants’ answers also do not comply with CCP §2033.220, which states that the RFA responses must be as complete and straightforward as possible. Each answer must admit so much of the matter involved in the request as true, or deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. To the extent that Defendants are unable to provide an unqualified admission, they have the opportunity to respond in FROG 17.1.

The Court will grant the motions to compel further responses to RFA 23-55.

RFA 56-60

RFA 56-60 seek an admission/denial from Defendants that Biggie remained in the same room after he bit Plaintiff, and admissions regarding Defendants’ insurance policy.

Defendants objected to these RFAs on the basis that the questions were cumulative to those asked at Defendants’ depositions. However, this response is not responsive to whether Defendants are admitting or denying the RFAs. Moreover, the fact that these questions were asked during deposition does not excuse Defendants from responding to properly propounded RFA request.

The Court will grant motions to compel further responses to RFA 56-60.

Conclusion

The Court will grant motions to compel further responses to RPD 23-60. Defendants are ordered to each provide responses without objection to RFA requests within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the total amount of $1,520.00 ($350/hour for 4 hours, plus $120 in filing fees) for filing these two motions.

RULING:

Grant Plaintiff’s motions to compel Mercedes and Dago Torres to provide further responses without objection to the FROG, SROG, RPD, and RFA at issue without objection within 20 days of notice of this order.

Grant Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the total amount of $3,860.00.