Interrogatories

Fluidmaster identifies alleged deficiencies with the following interrogatory responses:

Form Rogs 3.7, 12.1-12.3

Special Rogs 1-3, 7-8, 10-21, 24-33, 39-41, 44-45, 49, 50-52, 54, 56-59

Boogiezone, for its part, does not dispute that the responses left something to be desired. As explained in the opposition papers, Boogiezone’s PMK resides in Japan and did not have ready access to the local files. He was recently deposed on 04/18/14, providing much of the information sought. In addition, there is a scheduled inspection of the anti-siphon valve on 05/01/14, providing further information regarding potential liability. Boogiezone has offered to amend its interrogatory responses consistent with the new information now available. For this reason, it is not necessary to comb through all of the interrogatories and original responses to determine which, if any, require supplementing. The substantive portion of the motion is MOOT. However, to be clear, the promised supplemental responses must be served within 20 days.

Although the substance of the original responses is not pertinent to the order to compel, the quality of the responses is relevant to the issue of sanctions both under CCP §2023.030(a) [misuse of discovery process] and §2030.300(d) [unjustified opposition to motion].

Form Interrogatories: this Court concludes that the original responses to form interrogatories, though incomplete, did not rise to the level of discovery abuse. Boogiezone’s opposition was substantially justified since its PMK was out of the country (although Boogiezone should have already served supplemental responses without requiring this Court to order such).

Special Interrogatories: this Court concludes that the original responses to special interrogatories demonstrate a marked disinterest in finding actual information to disclose. The party responding to interrogatories has an obligation to provide responses which are “as complete and straightforward” as possible, which obligates the party to make a “reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information” from sources within its reach/control. CCP §2030.220. Even if portions of an interrogatory are objectionable, the remaining answerable portion must be substantively addressed. CCP §2030.240; Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188-1189; Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293. The responses provided were not up to standard, and as such reflect a misuse of the discovery process. Moreover, the opposition is not substantially justified.

Counsel’s billing rate of $185 is quite reasonable. Unfortunately, counsel failed to apportion attorney time dedicated to this specific motion, preferring instead to lump all of her time for the three motions together. Sanctions are awarded for $645 (3 hrs + $60 filing fee + $30 court reporter), payable within 20 days.

Production of Documents

Fluidmaster identifies alleged deficiencies with the production for each of the following categories: 1-9, 15, 19-26, 28-29, 32, 34-35.

Boogiezone, for its part, does not dispute that production left something to be desired, and has offered to provide supplemental responses. The substantive portion of the motion is therefore MOOT. However, to be clear, the promised supplemental response and production must be served within 20 days.

Although the substance of the original responses is not pertinent to the order to compel, the quality of the responses is relevant to the issue of sanctions both under CCP §2023.030(a) [misuse of discovery process] and §2031.310(h) [unjustified opposition to motion].

The responding party’s initial obligation on a demand for production of documents is fairly straight-forward: the party must provide a written response taking one of three forms:

(1) a statement of compliance, which includes the actual documents (organized and labeled or as they are kept in the usual course of business) or a clear indication as to when and how the documents will be provided (CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(1); 2031.220; 2031.280);

(2) a statement of noncompliance based on inability, confirming a “diligent search and reasonable inquiry” and the reason for the inability, to wit: the documents never existed, were lost/destroyed, or in the possession of someone inaccessible (CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2); 2031.230);

(3) A statement of noncompliance based on objection, which must describe responsive documents and set forth “clearly” the specific grounds for the objection (CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(3) and (d); 2031.240(b)).

Although a number of the responses are technically incomplete, the sum and substance of the responses is such that no abuse of discovery has taken place. The opposition was substantially justified since the bulk of the responses are adequate and the errors were really form over substance. Sanctions are denied for this motion.