Estate of Kenneth Yun, et al. v. Robert M. Handy, et al.
Case No: 19CV00443
Hearing Date: Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: 7 Motions to Compel Further Responses

Motions (7) to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Attorneys:

For Plaintiff: John C. Carpenter, et al. (Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley – Beverly Hills)

For Defendant: Clayton T. Graham, et al. (Jacobsen & McElroy – Sacramento); William S. Kronnenberg (Oakland)

Ruling: The Court grants defendant Robert Handy’s six motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories and form interrogatories, sets one, and motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents. The Court orders plaintiff Hee S. Yun to provide further responses to form interrogatories ##9.1, 9.2, and 14.1 and special interrogatories ##18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 43, and 44. The Court orders plaintiff Steve Yun to provide further responses to form interrogatories ##9.1, 9.2, and 14.1 and special interrogatories ##18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 43, and 44. The Court orders plaintiff Steve Yun as Administrator for the Estate of Kenneth Yun to provide further responses to form interrogatories ##9.1, 9.2, 10.2, and 14.1; special interrogatories ##2, ,5, 6, 9, ,10, and 11; and request for production of documents #20. All responses shall be consistent with this ruling and must be served on counsel for defendant Robert Handy on or before September 24, 2019. Counsel for defendant Robert Handy shall give notice of this order.

Background

This case involves a wrongful death claim arising out of an accident that occurred at the property located at 839 Embarcadero Del Norte in Santa Barbara, which is owned by defendants Robert M. Handy and Danute V. Handy. The accident resulted in the death of Kenneth Yun. Plaintiffs Steve Yun as Administrator for the Estate of Kenneth Yun (“Estate”), Steve Yun individually (“Steve”), and Hee S. Yun (“Hee”) have alleged that defendants maintained a dangerous condition at the property and/or were otherwise negligent with regard to the accident. MSC is scheduled for February 7 and trial for February 25, 2020.

Motions

Defendant Robert Handy moves for orders compelling each of the three defendants to provide further responses to sets one of form interrogatories and special interrogatories. Defendant moves for an order compelling Estate to provide further responses to his request for production of documents, set one. None of the defendants filed an opposition to the motions.

1. Form Interrogatories (“FI”): Estate, Steve, and Hee provided identical responses to FI ##9.1, 9.2, and 14.1. Estate’s response to FI #10.2 is also at issue.

a. FI ##9.1 and 9.2: FI #9.1 asks if there are any damages the defendants attribute to the incident and, if so, for each item the nature, date, amount, and identification of each person to whom an obligation was incurred. FI #9.2 asks if any document supports the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in response to FI #9.1 and, if so, for a description of the document and identification of any custodian.

For both of these FIs, each defendant listed objections: vague, ambiguous, and overbroad; lack of foundation; calls for speculation, expert opinion, and legal conclusion; and seeks premature disclosure of expert opinions. Defendants do not attempt to justify these objections. The Court finds they have no merit and overrules them.

Defendants must respond to these FIs with information known to them. The facts of damage are not beyond the knowledge of ordinary lay persons and are not expert opinions. Defendants all respond that they are in the process of determining or obtaining additional information responsive to the interrogatory, they will supplement the response, and they defer to experts. “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” CCP § 2030.220(c).

Each defendant must provide a further response to FI ##9.1 and 9.2.

b. FI #10.2: FI #10.2 asks Estate to list all physical, mental, and emotional disabilities the decedent had immediately before the incident. Estate gave the same response as for FI ##9.1 and 9.2. For the same reasons the Court orders a further response to FI #10.2.

c. FI #14.1: FI #14.1 asks whether defendants contend that any person violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the incident and, if so, for identification of the person and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated. Defendants respond with the same objections overruled above. They also assert the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege. Then they respond that defendants did not properly construct, maintain, etc., the railing over which Kenney Yun fell but they do not identify any particular statutes, ordinances, or regulations.

Defendants must provide a further response to FI #14.1 indicating what statutes, ordinances, or regulations were violated and by whom. If defendants claim any information is privileged, defendants must identify any attorney-client privilege and/or item of work product and provide information, including the date of the communication or creation of work product; the participants in the communication; the author of the work product; and name, address, and telephone number of any person with whom the communication or work product was shared.

2. Special Interrogatories (“SI”) to Hee and Steve Yun:

The following SIs are at issue: SI ##18 & 19 regarding any financial support these plaintiffs received from decedent; SI #20 regarding any mental anguish, grief, or sorrow resulting from decedent’s death; SI ##21 & 22 regarding any economic damages; SI ##26, 27, 30, & 31 regarding negligence contentions; and SI ##39, 41, 42, 43, & 44 regarding any loss of expected benefits from decedent.

The response to all of these SIs is word-for-word identical:

Objection. Responding Party objects to the extent that it lacks foundation, calls for speculation, and calls for expert opinion. Furthermore, the interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert opinion(s) and calls for a legal conclusion. Responding Party further objects to the extent that the special interrogatory violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto, Responding Party responds: Based upon limited information and belief, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party is in the process of determining information that is responsive to this request and will provide such information once ascertained. Further investigation and discovery is required. Responding Party otherwise defers to his experts who have not been designated at this time. Discovery is continuing and ongoing, and Responding Party reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response based upon subsequently learned fact and/or expert opinion.

The Court overrules the objections. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to the FIs, defendants must provide further responses to these SIs. The responses must comply with CCP § 2030.220(c). If Hee and/or Steve claim that any information is privileged, they must identify any attorney-client privilege and/or item of work product and provide information, including the date of the communication or creation of work product; the participants in the communication; the author of the work product; and name, address, and telephone number of any person with whom the communication or work product was shared.

3. SIs to Estate:

The following SIs are at issue: SI#2 regarding economic damages; SI ##5, 6, 9, & 10 regarding negligence contentions; and SI #11 regarding special damages for medical services. The response to each of these SIs is word-for-word identical to the response Hee and Steve Yun gave to their SIs with the addition that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. These SIs are not vague or ambiguous.

For the same reasons addressed above with respect to Hee and Steve Yun, Estate must provide further responses to these SIs. The responses must comply with CCP § 2030.220(c). If Estate claims that any information is privileged, Estate must identify any attorney-client privilege and/or item of work product and provide information, including the date of the communication or creation of work product; the participants in the communication; the author of the work product; and name, address, and telephone number of any person with whom the communication or work product was shared.

4. Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”):

RFP #20 propounded to Estate seeks all documents set forth in responses to SIs. The response: “Objection. Unintelligible and incomplete interrogatory.” First, it is not an interrogatory. It is intelligible and complete. The Court overrules the objection. Estate must provide a further response to RFP #20. If Estate claims that any document is privileged, Estate must identify any attorney-client privilege and/or item of work product and provide information, including the date of the communication or creation of work product; the participants in the communication; the author of the work product; and name, address, and telephone number of any person with whom the communication or work product was shared.

5. Order: The Court grants defendant Robert Handy’s six motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories and form interrogatories, sets one, and motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents. The Court orders plaintiff Hee S. Yun to provide further responses to form interrogatories ##9.1, 9.2, and 14.1 and special interrogatories ##18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 43, and 44. The Court orders plaintiff Steve Yun to provide further responses to form interrogatories ##9.1, 9.2, and 14.1 and special interrogatories ##18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 43, and 44. The Court orders plaintiff Steve Yun as Administrator for the Estate of Kenneth Yun to provide further responses to form interrogatories ##9.1, 9.2, 10.2, and 14.1; special interrogatories ##2, ,5, 6, 9, ,10, and 11; and request for production of documents #20. All responses shall be consistent with this ruling and must be served on counsel for defendant Robert Handy on or before September 24, 2019. Counsel for defendant Robert Handy shall give notice of this order.