Luna v. Monterey Petroleum, Inc. CASE NO. 113CV250968
DATE: 27 June May 2014 TIME: 9:00 LINE NUMBER: 14
This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 26 June 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 27 June 2014, the motion of Plaintiff to compel Defendants Monterey Petroleum Shell, Kuldeep Bhandal and Charan Bhandal to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one, number 15.1 and special interrogatories, set one, number 18 and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.

Defendants filed formal opposition to the motion.

Statement of Facts

The complaint in this matter was filed on 9 August 2013.

Plaintiff alleges that she sustained injuries when on 20 August 2011 she slipped on some water and fell on premises owned or managed by Defendants. She injured her right arm and has incurred approximately $34,000.00 in medical bills.

Defendant Charan Bhandal answered the complaint on 18 February 2014. The default of Defendants Kuldeep Bhandal and thus Monterey Petroleum Inc. doing business as Monterey Shell Gas Station was entered on 28 October 2013. Although these defendants filed a motion for relief from default, it appears that the parties stipulated on 6 March 2014 to set the default aside, and they answered on 20 March 2014. Defendants are all represented by the same law firm.

Discovery Dispute

Plaintiff served various discovery requests on Defendants. Plaintiff objects to the responses of Defendants to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one, number 15.1 and special interrogatories, set one, number 18. In a letter dated 4 April 2014, Plaintiff demanded further responses. Defense counsel responded in a letter dated 17 April 2014 declining to provide further responses.

Analysis

Generally, when answering an interrogatory, “[e]ach answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” “[A] party has a general duty to conduct a reasonable investigation to obtain responsive information and must furnish information from all sources under his or her control.” Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal. App. 4th 1496, 1505. Additionally, answers to interrogatories must be complete and respond to the question posed. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.

“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings. (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.210(a) : Coriell v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal. App. 3d 487, 492.

Form Interrogatory 15.1:

This interrogatory asks for information pertaining to each special or affirmative defense raised in the answers. Specifically, it seeks information about all facts upon which the denials or affirmative defenses are based, the names and addresses and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts, and all documents and other tangible things which support the denials and the identity and contact information for each person who has such documents in their possession.

Defendants answered as follows:

“Assuming plaintiff fell in the area directly in front of the exit of the carwash, and she is responsible for the accident on the grounds that she walked in an area where water from the carwash may have been present, that said the water constituted an open and obvious condition, that in the area of the carwash exit there are six “slippery when wet” warning signs. There are two (2) signs posted on the building adjacent to the exit which read “Caution. Slippery When Wet”. [sic] There are two (2) warning signs painted in yellow on the pavement on one side of the exit, behind a red striping which read” Slippery When Wet.” There is a warning sign painted in white immediately in front of the exit and a white warning side [sic] on the other side of the exit which similarly read “Slippery When Wet.” Further, there was nothing preventing plaintiff from walking in an area other than immediately in front of the carwash exit. Discovery is continuing.”

“Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Scheidling v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76.) Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought is improper. It is also improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

Defendants’ response is not full and complete. Plaintiff is entitled to a detailed response as to each affirmative defense.

The motion to compel a further response to form interrogatory, set one, number 15.1 is GRANTED. Defendants are to provide a code compliant response within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

Special Interrogatory, Set One, Number 18:

This interrogatory asks Defendants to: “IDENTIFY all employees working at the SUBJECT PREMISES on the day of the INCIDENT.”

Defendants answered as follows:

“Defendants have insufficient information to respond to this interrogatory. This incident was not witnessed by Defendants or their employees by anyone, including plaintiff. Consequently, this responding defendant unaware [sic] of the actual date of the alleged incident, assuming it even occurred. Nonetheless, the employees who worked at the SUBJECT LOCATION in and around the time frame of plaintiff’s alleged incident are as follows: Narinder Multani; SuRinder Multani; Parminder Sangera; Charan Bhandal; Kuldeep Bhandal.”

Plaintiff previously defined the word IDENTIFY as meaning “to state entire name, business and residential address, business and residential phone number.” This issue is firmly resolved in Puerto v. Superior Court, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1249-1250 as follows:

“The disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essential part of pretrial discovery. Indeed, our discovery system is founded on the understanding that parties use discovery to obtain names and contact information for possible witnesses as the starting point for further investigations. . . . The party’s ability to subpoena witnesses presumes that he has the witnesses’ contact information. One glance at the form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council, particularly the interrogatories in the 12.0 series, demonstrates how fundamentally routine the discovery of witness contact information is. These standard form interrogatories request the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of witnesses to the relevant incident, persons possessing tangible objects relevant to the investigation, and persons who have been interviewed or given statements about the incident, or made a report or investigation of the incident.”

Defendants’ response is not full and complete. Plaintiff is entitled to a detailed response as to each affirmative defense. Plaintiff indicates that she wants to be able to contact these individuals should they leave their employment. She also wants to conduct background investigation about them.

The motion to compel a further response to special interrogatory, set one, number 18 is GRANTED. Defendants are to provide a code compliant response within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

Sanctions

Plaintiff makes a request for monetary sanctions. The request is code-compliant.

Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” See Rule of Court 2.30.

Plaintiff correctly cites Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.300(d) as allowing the moving party to recover monetary sanctions if the responding party opposes the motion without substantial justification.

Plaintiff seeks six hours of time in compensation for this motion. The Court will allow five hours of time at this point since the matter has not gone to a contested hearing. If Defendant does orally argue before the Court, the Defendant may bring up the issue of further sanctions at that time.

Defendants are ordered to pay the sum of $965.00 to counsel for Plaintiff within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

Order

The motion to compel a further response to form interrogatory, set one, number 15.1 is GRANTED. Defendants are to provide a code compliant response within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to special interrogatory, set one, number 18 is GRANTED. Defendants are to provide a code compliant response within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

Defendants are ordered to pay the sum of $965.00 to counsel for Plaintiff within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.