Case Number: BC654048 Hearing Date: June 12, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY; MOTION GRANTED, IN PART

On March 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Ameenah Rasheed (“Rasheed”) and Quron Fenlayson (“Fenlayson”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Tyra Ghamghamy, Shervin Ghamghamy (collectively, “Defendants”) for motor vehicle and general negligence and loss of consortium relating to an October 29, 2015 automobile collision.

On January 9, 2018, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Defendants. (Declaration of Brenda J. Pannell, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) On February 13, 2018, the day responses were due, defense counsel left a voicemail message for Plaintiff’s counsel, seeking a two-week extension on responses. (Declaration of Timothy B. Fitzhugh, ¶ 2.) On February 14, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel granted a one-week extension on responses in exchange for a one-week extension on the deadline to file any motions to compel further responses. (Pannell Decl., ¶ 4.) On February 20, 2018, Defendant served responses to discovery. (Pannell Decl., ¶ 6.) On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding improper responses. (Pannell Decl., ¶ 8.)

On May 16, 2018, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) with the Court and Defendant served amended or supplemental responses on May 30, 2018. Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses.

Upon receipt of responses to discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses are evasive, incomplete, an objection is without merit or too general. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a).) A motion for an order compelling further responses shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), 2033.290, subd. (b)), and notice of the motion shall be given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing, or the party requesting the order waives any right to compel further responses (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c)).

Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission must include a separate statement providing all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and response at issue. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and full response. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Request for Production of Documents

A motion requesting an order compelling further responses to a demand for production of documents must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) If good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

At the IDC, the Court recommended Defendant provide further responses to Request for Production Nos. 11 and 17. On May 30, 2018, Defendant provided unverified further responses to Requests Nos. 2, 3, 5-13, 16-18, and 25-29. At issue are Requests Nos. 5, 9, 10, and 18.

Plaintiff has shown good cause to compel further responses to Request No. 5, seeking document showing Defendant’s cellular phone number on the date of the accident. The request for further response is GRANTED and a further verified response is to be served within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order.

The request for further responses to Requests Nos. 9 (all documents transmitted between Geico and Plaintiff’s counsel); 10 (all documents evidencing a subrosa or surveillance conducted on Plaintiff’s behalf); and 18 (Plaintiff’s calendar for the month of October 2015) are DENIED.

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the requested documents. It is not clear why documents transmitted between Geico and Plaintiff’s counsel would need to be produced, as theoretically, Plaintiff’s counsel would already have access to such documents. Plaintiff has made no argument as to why there is good cause to discover documents evidencing any subrosa surveillance. Further, it is not clear whether Plaintiff seeks to discover actual subrosa documents or just the fact of whether subrosa surveillance was conducted. Finally, Plaintiff makes no argument why there is good cause to discover Defendant’s October 2015 calendar.

Defendant is ordered to serve verifications for previously unverified responses within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order.

Special Interrogatories

There is no such “good cause” requirement where the requesting party is seeking further responses to interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.) Rather, the burden is the responding party to justify an objection or to show a response was complete. (Ibid; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

At the IDC, the Court recommended Defendant provide further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 16, 24, 26, 28, and 35. On May 30, 2018, Defendant served unverified further responses, but did not provide a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 28, which seeks the name of the last person Defendant spoke with on her cell phone prior to the accident.

Defendant argues she has no source which would provide her with the information of who she last spoke with on her cellular phone before the accident and that her current response of “unknown” is appropriate and remains so. The Court finds this response is incomplete and evasive and Defendant could locate the information by conducting a diligent search. Defendant has failed to meet her burden of showing her response was complete.

Defendant is ordered to provide a further, code-compliant, response to Special Interrogatory No. 28, and verifications for all discovery responses, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks monetary sanctions for Defendant’s failure to meet and confer, which counsel claims necessitated these Motions and the IDC. Defense counsel admits he failed to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. (Fitzhugh Decl., ¶ 4.) Failing to confer with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process for which monetary sanctions may be imposed. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (i), 2023.020.)

The Court finds these Motions were opposed with substantial justification, but that defense counsel failed to meet and confer. Monetary sanctions are imposed against defense counsel only, in the amount of $420.00 for one hour at Plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $300.00 per hour and the $120.00 filing fees for these Motions. This monetary sanction is to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.