Case Number: BC628850 Hearing Date: April 30, 2018 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Moving Party: Defendant Gene Armstrong

Resp. Party: None

The motion to compel Emilia Bolanos Guillen’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (General) is GRANTED with the following exception: plaintiff does not have to answer Form interrogatory No. 2.6.

The motion to compel Benjamin Martinez’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (General) is GRANTED with the following exception: plaintiff does not have to answer Form interrogatory No. 2.6.

The motion to compel Benjamin Martinez’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (Economic Litigation) is DENIED.

The motion to compel Emilia Bolanos Guillen’s response to Form Interrogatories (Economic Litigation) is GRANTED.

The Court sanctions plaintiffs in the amount of $1,320.00.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

The Court always finds it perplexing when a motion to compel is not opposed. If plaintiffs agreed that they should produce these documents, the Court would have expected them to simply comply with the discovery demands. If, on the other hand, plaintiffs believed that their objections or lack of responses had merit, the Court would have expected an opposition to these motions.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff commenced this action on 08/02/16 against defendants for: (1) nuisance; (2) negligence; (3) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (4) violation of Civil Code section 789.3; and (5) violation of Civil Code section 1940.2.

ANALYSIS:

Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Defendant has filed three separate motions to compel plaintiffs’ further responses to Form Interrogatories.

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if the responding party produced an evasive or incomplete answer or a meritless or overly general objection in response to an interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).) A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories lies where the party to whom the interrogatories were directed gave responses deemed improper by the propounding party; e.g., objections, or evasive or incomplete answers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) The moving party must also include reasons why further answers should be ordered: legal or factual arguments why the answers given were incomplete or nonresponsive, or the objections invalid. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) However, where a timely motion to compel further has been filed, “the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories.” (Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 8:1179.) “The ruling usually is based on consideration of the following factors: [¶] the relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings; [¶] the likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery; [¶] the burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought.” (Id., ¶ 8:1181.)

The notice of motion must be served within 45 days after service of the responses in question (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, or fax (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1013)); otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c), 2016.050; see Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736, 745.) The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (Mullikin Med. Ctr.) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) However, the parties can also agree in writing on a specific later date by which to file the motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c), 2033.290(c).)

Motion to compel plaintiff Benjamin Martinez’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (General)

Defendant seeks to compel plaintiff Benjamin Martinez’s further responses to 27 form interrogatories that were originally propounded to plaintiff on 12/19/17. Defendant also requests that the Court impose sanctions on plaintiff in the amount of $1,010.00. (See Notice of Motion, p. 2:1-4.)

The instant motion is timely and defendant provides a separate statement and a meet and confer declaration. (See Chow Decl. ¶ 7; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a),(c).)

On 12/19/17, defendant served plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (General) seeking answers to 45 separate interrogatories. (Chow Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on or before 01/24/18. (Chow Decl., ¶ 3.) On 01/25/18, when no responses had been received, defendant sent a meet-and-confer letter to plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff served her responses on 02/01/18. (See Id. at ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. C.) Although plaintiff asserted general objections to the Form Interrogatories as a whole, he failed to provide an answer or a specific objection to 27 of the interrogatories. (See Ibid.) Defendant subsequently granted plaintiff an extension to provide further responses, but no further responses have been received. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.)

Defendant is correct that plaintiff has failed to provide any response whatsoever to many of the form interrogatories. (Compare Chow Decl., Exh. A to Exh. C.) While a party might reasonably object to any particular interrogatory for a number of different reasons, plaintiff’s responses to these interrogatories is inadequate. “In lieu of answering or allowing inspection of records . . . the responding party may serve objections. Each objection must be stated separately (no objections to entire set), and must bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed.” (Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 8:1071; Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210(a)(3).) Here, plaintiff has stated general objections to the entire set of interrogatories but has simply failed to provide any response or objection to many of the interrogatories.

However, the Court notes that defendant seeks to compel plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.6 despite the fact that the box for 2.6 was not checked on the interrogatories propounded to plaintiff. (Compare Separate Statement, p. 3:17-21 to Chow Decl., Exh. A p. 2.) As this interrogatory was not properly propounded, defendant may not seek to compel plaintiff’s answer.

The motion is GRANTED. With the exception of interrogatory 2.6, plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to the Form Interrogatories as requested in defendant’s separate statement.

Motion to compel plaintiff Emilia Bolanos Guillen’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (General)

Defendant seeks to compel plaintiff Emilia Bolanos Guillen’s further responses to 28 form interrogatories that were originally propounded to plaintiff on 12/19/17. Defendant also requests that the Court impose sanctions on plaintiff in the amount of $630.00 (See Notice of Motion, p. 2:1-4.)

The instant motion is timely and defendant provides a separate statement and a meet and confer declaration. (See Chow Decl. ¶¶ 7; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a),(c).)

On 12/19/17, defendant served plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (General) seeking answers to 45 separate interrogatories. (Chow Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on or before 01/24/18. (Chow Decl., ¶ 3.) On 01/25/18, when no responses had been received, defendant sent a meet-and-confer letter to plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff served her responses on 02/01/18. (See Id. at ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. C.) Although plaintiff asserted general objections to the Form Interrogatories as a whole, she failed to provide an answer or a specific objection to 28 of the interrogatories. (See Ibid.) Defendant subsequently granted plaintiff an extension to provide further responses, but no further responses have been received. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.)

Defendant is correct that plaintiff has failed to provide any response whatsoever to many of the form interrogatories. (Compare Chow Decl., Exh. A to Exh. C.) While a party might reasonably object to any particular interrogatory for a number of different reasons, plaintiff’s responses to these interrogatories is inadequate. “In lieu of answering or allowing inspection of records . . . the responding party may serve objections. Each objection must be stated separately (no objections to entire set), and must bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed.” (Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 8:1071; Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210(a)(3).) Here, plaintiff has stated general objections to the entire set of interrogatories but has simply failed to provide any response or objection to many of the interrogatories.

However, the Court notes that defendant seeks to compel plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.6 despite the fact that the box for 2.6 was not checked on the interrogatories propounded to plaintiff. (Compare Separate Statement, p. 3:17-20 to Chow Decl., Exh. A p. 2.) As this interrogatory was not properly propounded, defendant may not seek to compel plaintiff’s answer.

The motion is GRANTED. With the exception of interrogatory 2.6, plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to the Form Interrogatories as requested in defendant’s separate statement. Sanctions will be addressed separately.

Motion to compel plaintiff Benjamin Martinez’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (Economic Litigation)

Defendant seeks to compel plaintiff Benjamin Martinez’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (Economic Litigation) that were originally propounded to plaintiff on 12/19/17. Defendant also requests that the Court impose sanctions on plaintiff in the amount of $630.00 (See Notice of Motion, p. 2:1-4.)

The instant motion is timely and defendant provides a separate statement and a meet and confer declaration. (See Chow Decl. ¶¶ 7; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a),(c).)

This motion is based upon the same set of facts as the two prior motions. However, it appears that defense counsel has not attached the exhibits mentioned in the declaration. As a result, the Court is unable to confirm that the plaintiff’s original responses were inadequate.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. Sanctions will not be awarded in connection with this motion.

Motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories

Defendant has filed one motion to compel plaintiff’s initial responses to Form Interrogatories.

Motion to compel plaintiff Emilia Bolanos Guillen’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Economic Litigation)

Defendant seeks to compel plaintiff Emilia Bolanos Guillen’s response to Form Interrogatories (Economic Litigation) that were originally propounded to plaintiff on 12/19/17. Defendant also requests that the Court impose sanctions on plaintiff in the amount of $630.00. (See Notice of Motion, p. 2:1-4.)

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom interrogatories are propounded within 30 days after service of the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, “the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)

Defendant declares that Form Interrogatories (Economic Litigation) were served on plaintiff on 12/19/17. (Chow Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Exhibit A contains a proof of service showing that the interrogatories were served on 12/19/17. (Ibid.) Although plaintiff served responses to Form Interrogatories (General) on 02/01/18, she did not serve any responses to Form Interrogatories (Economic Litigation). (Chow Decl.,¶ 5.) Defense counsel then contacted plaintiff’s counsel and requested the responses on multiple occasions but no responses were ever received. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-7.)

The motion is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Defendant has requested that the Court impose sanctions on plaintiff as compensation for the expenses incurred in bringing each of these motions. (See Chow Decls, ¶ 8.) In connection with his three successful motions, defendant seeks sanctions in the total amount of $2,270. (Ibid.) This sum represents three hours to draft each of the three motions, two hours to attend the hearing, and three $60 filing fees. (Ibid.) Defense counsel bills $190 per hour. (Ibid.)

Although defendant is entitled to sanctions, this amount is somewhat excessive. Each of the motions is nearly identical and contains only slight changes to reflect the name of the subject plaintiff and the discovery request at issue. Defendant may reasonably recover for four hours of counsel’s time — two hours to draft the first motion and one hour each to draft the other two. Defendant may also recover for two hours of counsel’s time to attend the hearing as well as $180 in filing fees.

Accordingly, the Court sanctions plaintiff in the amount of $1,320.00.