Case Number: BC693815 Hearing Date: March 04, 2020 Dept: 74

BC693815 ANA ROSA RIVERA VS OSTERKAMP TRUCKING INC

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses Form Interrogatories and for Sanctions and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions and for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion to compel further response to request for admissions is granted in part. Plaintiffs are each to provide further responses to requests 21, 22 and 24, without objections, within 30 days. The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory 17.1 is granted. Plaintiffs are each to provide further responses, without objection, within 30 days. Plaintiffs and their attorney Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay defendant Osterkamp Trucking, Inc. sanctions of $3645 within 30 days.

Timeliness

Plaintiffs argue the 45-day limitation has expired as the responses were served in September, more than 45 days before the motion was filed, and the informal discovery conference never occurred because of the transfer from personal injury to civil. The IDC was set in the personal injury court. The transfer prevented it, but defendant did attempt to reset it in this court. Plaintiffs withdrew from participating in an IDC in January 2020. This motion was filed in January. The agreement to extend time until 30 days after completion of the IDC was effective. Plaintiffs withdrawal from the IDC process would have triggered the 30-day extension. The motion was timely filed.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions

As to request numbers 21, 22, and 24, plaintiffs objected that “dark clothing”, “reflective clothing” and “jaywalking” were too vague and ambiguous for them to provide a response.

Ambiguity objections as to discovery are overruled unless requests are unintelligible. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444; cf. Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901.)

These terms are not ambiguous, and are in within common usage. To the extent plaintiffs determine a further definition is required, they established in the response to request number 14 that they are well able to do so.

Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1

Plaintiffs’ objections are not well-taken. The interrogatory seeks only facts known to plaintiffs supporting their response, which does not include expert opinions, attorney-client communications or attorney work product. A reference to the complaint is not appropriate, as the allegations of the complaint are not facts. The interrogatory is not seeking legal theories or arguments.

This interrogatory also requires identification of witnesses. A response that merely states categories of potential witnesses, without identification of specific persons to the extent known, is incomplete. Plaintiffs are required to identify those persons they consider witnesses, even if those persons’ identities are known to defendant.

As to documents, the responsive documents need to be specifically identified. If they have previously been produced, they can be identified by Bates number.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs and their attorney Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay defendant Osterkamp Trucking, Inc. sanctions of $3645. The court notes that defendants are entitled to obtain discovery from each plaintiff, just as each plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery from each defendant.