16-CIV-02976 ESTEL KNAUFF, et al. vs. RICHARD J. BEALE, et al.

ESTEL KNAUFF RICHARD G. GROTCH

RICHARD J. BEALE Jeffrey s. lyons

motion for order COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Defendant Richard J. Beale (“Defendant”) for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents, and for Monetary Sanctions, from Plaintiffs Estel Knauff and Aline C. Gaff (“Plaintiffs”), is ruled on as follows:

The Motion to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-7, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ objection that the requests are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, is without merit. Further, Plaintiffs are to provide a privilege log to the extent Plaintiffs claim any documents are protected by the attorney-client and/or work product doctrine. (See Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188-1189.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide further responses to these requests, without objections other than attorney-client and/or work product doctrine. For any documents withheld based on attorney-client and/or work product doctrine, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide Defendant with a privilege log.

The Motion to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-48, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ objections lack merit. Although Plaintiffs also objected to these interrogatories based on attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, these interrogatories only ask Plaintiffs to state facts and identify witnesses and documents in support of their allegations in the Complaint. The existence of a document containing privileged information is not privileged. (Best Products, Inc., supra at 1190.) Consequently, a privilege log is unnecessary with regard to answering interrogatories seeking the identification of documents. (Id.) Plaintiffs are therefore to provide further responses to these interrogatories without objections.

The Motion to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.5-2.10, 14.1, 50.1-50.6, is GRANTED. Plaintiff failed to provide any responses to these form interrogatories. Thus, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide responses, without objections, to these interrogatories. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)

Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,125.00 against Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are to provide further responses in accordance with this order and pay monetary sanctions to Defendant within thirty days of service of notice of entry of order by Defendant.

Plaintiffs are also advised that failure to comply with this order or further discovery misuse may result in the imposition of future sanctions, including monetary, evidentiary, issue, terminating or contempt sanctions.