2017-00206297-CU-PA

Megan Murphy vs. Tessa Marie Trimble

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Form Interrogatories 2) Production of Documents

Filed By: Black, Travis G.

Plaintiff Megan Murphy’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery and for Monetary Sanctions of $1860 is GRANTED.

This personal injury and property damage action arises from a motor vehicle accident.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant Tessa Marie Trimble (“Defendant”) was not traveling in a safe manner for traffic conditions, and rear ended Plaintiff’ s vehicle, causing injuries and damages to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory Nos. 7.1, 12.2, 13.1, 15.1, 16.9, and 20.8. These were served on May 29, 2018.

Plaintiff also seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents and Things, Set One, Demand Nos. 4, 9, 12, and 14. These were served on May 29, 2018.

Defendant provided objections and substantive responses to these discovery requests, and during the meet-and-confer process, defense counsel represented that amended responses would be provided for nearly all of these requests. (See generally Separate Statement.) However, despite those representations, no amended responses were ever served by defense counsel.

Defendant’s Opposition does not address any specific discovery request or attempt to make any showing that a given request has been properly responded to. (Opp’n at 1-5.) However, the Court agrees with Defendant (Opp’n at 3-4) that objections have not been waived. Defendant’s objections were preserved when the discovery responses including those objections were timely served.

The Court has reviewed the requests and objections and substantive responses thereto, as well as defense counsel’s meet-and-confer representations that the bulk of the challenged responses would be amended. Defense counsel offers no explanation for his apparently hollow representations in that regard.

With respect to Form Interrogatory 20.8 (the only challenged interrogatory response for which defense counsel did not represent that an amended response would be served), the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant’s response was deficient. Defendant’s response to each subpart of this interrogatory must include the “speed, direction, and location of each vehicle involved.” Defendant’s current response does not include these specifics for each subpart. A further response to this interrogatory is therefore required.

With respect to RFP 9, which seeks copies of reports or writings obtained from any insurance indexing system or reporting system which may have information regarding any alleged prior claims of the plaintiff, Defendant objected on grounds of work product and on the grounds that the information is equally available to the plaintiff. However, in meet and confer correspondence defense counsel later represented that Defendant is “not in possession, custody, or control of the requested items” and that “there are no reports in defendant’s possession relative to your client.” (Sep. Statement at 14-16.) The Court finds that such response would be Code-compliant if it were served as an actual further response to the RFP, rather than asserted in an unverified meet and confer letter. A further response to RFP 9 in the proper form is therefore required.

Finally, with respect to RFP 12, the Court finds that the response reflecting that Defendant is “not in possession, custody, or control of the requested items” would be Code-compliant, especially given Defense counsel’s subsequent meet-and-confer representation clarifying that “defendant and/or defendant’s insurance company do not

possess a statement from plaintiff.” (Sep. Statement at 17.) The Court orders a further response to RFP 12 that would make this clarifying representation in the proper form, with an accompanying verification.

As to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $1,860 (four hours at hourly rate of $450 plus $60 filing fee), the request is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010 et seq. and § 2030.300. (Declaration of Travis Black ¶ 9.) The Court concludes that the Opposition in this case has been unsuccessful and was filed without substantial justification. Defense counsel offered no explanation for his representations that amended substantive responses would be forthcoming, nor did he simply serve such amended responses in lieu of opposing the motion. The $1,860 in monetary sanctions shall be paid on or before December 20, 2018. If sanctions are not paid by the due date, prevailing party may submit a formal order for enforcement purposes. (Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, 615.)

For the reasons stated in the moving papers, and based on the legal authorities quoted therein, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve further responses, with verifications to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory Nos. 7.1, 12.2, 13.1, 15.1, 16.9, and 20.8 on or before November 20, 2018. Defendant shall also serve further responses, with verifications, to RFP Nos. 4, 9, 12, and 14 and produce any documents demanded in these RFPs on or before November 20, 2018.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.