Case Name: Grellas Shah, LLP v. Defendant, et al.

Case No.: 16CV292971

This is a breach of contract action initiated by plaintiff Grellas Shah LLP (“Plaintiff”), a law firm, against defendant Linda Pokarney (“Defendant”), a former client.

According to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), the parties entered into a written attorney-client agreement, providing that Plaintiff would legally represent Defendant in connection with “an action against Dan Carpenter, Northwestern Life, and certain officers and directors of Clear View Technologies.” (FAC, p. 3, Ex. A.) In connection with the underlying case, Defendant allegedly failed to pay outstanding invoices in the amount of $124,477.23. (Id. at p. 3.) Plaintiff therefore filed a complaint asserting claims for breach of contract and common counts to recover the outstanding balance. (Ibid.)

Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Dhaivat Shah, her former counsel from the law firm. According to Defendant, Plaintiff vastly overcharged her based on the estimate she was initially given and performed legal work she did not authorize. (Cross-Complaint, p. 3.) The cross-complaint asserts two causes of action for breach of contract and common counts.

On or around August 4, 2017, Plaintiff served Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFA”), Form Interrogatories, Set Two (“FI”), and Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SI”) on Defendant. (McDaniel Decl., Exhs. 12-14.) On September 8, 2017, Defendant served responses thereto. (Shah Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) Over the course of the next month, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred regarding the adequacy of the discovery responses and agreed the deadline for any motion to compel would be extended to November 13, 2017 to allow the parties to complete the meet and confer process. (Shah Decl., ¶¶ 6-10). Unable to resolve their disputes as to the requests currently at issue, Plaintiff filed the present motion to compel on November 13, 2017.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 24-28; FI No. 17.1 as it relates to RFA Nos. 22 and 24-28; and SI Nos. 3, 6, 12-18, 21-24, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48, 51 and 53. In support, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice.

I. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of this Court’s January 31, 2017 discovery order, compelling Defendant to produce further responses to its first set of form interrogatories. While court records generally are proper subjects of judicial notice (Evid. Code. § 452, subd. (e)), a precondition to judicial notice is that the matter is relevant to a material issue before the Court. (Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Park Dist. v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 307; Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 748, fn. 6.) Here, this Court’s order on a prior discovery motion concerning discovery requests not at issue in the present motion is not relevant to the issues currently before the Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

II. Merits of the Motion

A. Requests for Admission

On receipt of a response to requests for admission, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete or an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290.) In its notice of motion, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 24-28 on the ground the responses are incomplete and evasive; there is no mention of the objections raised by Defendant. This is anomalous as the responses to these requests consisted of objections only and no substantive answers were provided. However, the motion to compel makes clear Plaintiff is also arguing Defendant’s objections to the RFAs are without merit. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(2).) As such, the Court will address this argument below.

RFA Nos. 24-28 request that Defendant admit that specific tasks performed by Plaintiff, which she claimed were unnecessary, duplicative, or excessive (as set forth in her responses to SI Nos. 35, 37, 39, 41, and 43) were, in fact, necessary to her case or claims, not duplicative, and not excessive. As an example of the convoluted nature of these requests, SI No. 35 requested identification of each task performed by Plaintiff which Defendant contends was unnecessary for her case; RFA No. 24 then asked Defendant to admit that each of those tasks she contended were unnecessary were, in fact, necessary.

Defendant objected to each of these requests on multiple bases but only attempts to justify her objections on the grounds they are “not full and complete in and of themselves” and “cover[] approximately [42 to 300] separate issues.” (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.060 (“Section 2033.060”), subd. (d).) The Court will address these arguments below; as to the undefended objections, they are overruled. (See Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [responding party must justify its objections].)

With respect to their objection that these requests, as framed, cover anywhere between 42 and 300 separate issues, Defendant apparently intended to object based on the rule that parties may propound more than 35 requests for admission as she focuses on that rule in her opposition to the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.030 (“Section 2033.030”), subd. (a) (“rule of 35”).) Arguably, this objection was not adequately stated as the statute requires a party to invoke this objection under the statute on the ground that the 35-request limit has been exceeded, and Defendant did not explicitly refer to either the statute or the 35-request limit it establishes. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.030, subd. (b).) In any event, any objection here based on the rule of 35 is problematic. Section 2033.030 provides that where more than 35 requests for admission have been propounded and no declaration of additional discovery has been made, a party need only respond to the first 35 admission requests and can respond to the balance of the requests with an objection that the limit has been exceeded. (See Code. Civ. Proc. § 2033.030, subd. (b).) Thus, parties may not pick and choose which 35 questions to answer and then object to the balance – this objection may only be used to avoid answering requests numbered 36 and up. (See Id.; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017), ¶ 8:940.) Here, Defendant is objecting to RFA Nos. 24-28. Since the requests at issue are contained within the first 35 requests, her objection does not conform to Section 2033.030. That being said, Defendant is correct in her assertion that RFA Nos. 24-28 otherwise are not code-compliant because they are not full and complete in and of themselves.

Each request for admission is required to be “full and complete in and of itself.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.060 (“Section 2033.060”), subd. (d).) In interpreting this requirement, courts have held that a discovery request is not full and complete in and of itself where “resort must necessarily be made to other materials in order to complete the question.” (Catanese v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1164 (“Catanese”), abrogated on other grounds by Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1232; see also Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1290.) In Catanese, after the plaintiff was deposed, she propounded interrogatories requesting that the defendant identify each answer given during deposition which the defendant contended was untrue and provide facts in support of that contention. (Catanese, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at 1162.) The court held that these interrogatories violated the self-containment rule in Section 2033.060 as they required the incorporation of separate questions and answers from eight volumes of deposition transcripts. (Id. at p. 1163.) The court further noted that if plaintiff had propounded her interrogatories in a self-contained fashion, inquiring separately about the truth or falsity of each deposition question and answer, she would have clearly violated the rule of 35. (Ibid.)

Here, RFA Nos. 24-28 likewise violate the requirement that each request be full and complete in and of itself because they necessarily require reference to other materials (e.g. Defendant’s responses to the corresponding SIs) in order to complete the question. These SIs demanded that Defendant individually list each task performed by Plaintiff that she contends was unnecessary, was duplicative or represented excessive billing. As Defendant observes, in response to SI No. 35 alone, she identified 248 tasks performed by Plaintiff which she contends were unnecessary. Had Plaintiff then propounded self-contained requests that Defendant admit that each of these identified tasks was in fact necessary to her case, this would result in 248 requests for admission, thereby violating the rule of 35 absent an accompanying declaration of necessity (which was not provided here). These circumstances are strikingly similar to Catanese, where the court, once again, concluded the self-containment rule was violated.

In her motion, Plaintiff argues RFA Nos. 24-28 did not violate the self-contained rule because one court held that reference to a prior interrogatory was not an impermissible reference to other materials – Clement, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at 1282. This argument is misguided. In Clement, the plaintiff objected that an interrogatory was not complete in and of itself where “Special Interrogatory No. 1” requested a description of all economic damages claimed to have been sustained and “Special Interrogatory No. 2” asked the plaintiff to state the amount of damages identified in “Special Interrogatory No. 1.” (Id.) The court overruled this objection, holding that this type of clear and concise reference to a previous interrogatory did not refer to or incorporate other materials or documents, or have the effect of undermining the rule of 35. (Id. at 1290.) This is clearly not the case here where RFA Nos. 24-28 are not referencing a request within the same document but are incorporating responses to other discovery. Thus, Plaintiff’s reliance on Clement is inapt.

Plaintiff’s reliance on Smith v. Superior Court In & For San Joaquin Cty. (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11, which advised against the burdensome use of multiple interrogatories where one would suffice, is also misplaced. As discussed above, it is clear here that the RFAs at issue could not have been framed as a sole request because each one independently required Defendant to admit or deny that each of the hundreds of disputed tasks were necessary to her case, not duplicative and not excessively billed.

Finally, Plaintiff’s argument it could not have known Defendant would identify so many tasks she contended were unnecessary, excessive, or duplicative, is also not persuasive. The record demonstrates that six months prior to service of these RFAs, Defendant served Plaintiff with amended responses to the first round of form interrogatories where she identified hundreds of billing entries she contended were either excessive, unnecessary, duplicative or represented work not performed on her case, as reflected in a document attached to the responses as Exhibit A (“Exhibit A”). (Shah Decl., Exh. A.) Based on its possession of this document, it is disingenuous for Plaintiff to claim unawareness that Plaintiff would identify so many contested billings. Moreover, the inability to anticipate Plaintiff’s response to these requests is simply not a legitimate excuse for drafting requests that are not self-contained.

In sum, the subject requests are not code-compliant. Therefore Defendant’s objection on the ground they are not self-contained has merit. As such, the motion to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 24-28 is DENIED.

B. Form Interrogatories

A party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling further responses if that party deems an answer is evasive or incomplete, the exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) In its notice of motion, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to FI No. 17.1 in relation to RFA Nos. 22 and 24-28 on the ground the responses are incomplete and evasive; there is no mention of the objections raised by Defendant. However, the motion to compel makes clear Plaintiff is arguing the responses were incomplete and evasive and/or the objections are without merit. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.)

FI No. 17.1 asked Defendant whether her response to each RFA is an unqualified admission. If not, she was obligated state for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) the number of the request; (b) all facts on which the response is based; (c) all persons with knowledge of those facts and their contact information; and (d) all documents supporting the identified response and the contact information of the person who has each document.

1. FI No. 17.1 Relative to RFA No. 22

RFA No. 22 asked Defendant to admit she has not paid Plaintiff for legal services provided after September 28, 2015. In response, Defendant admitted she made no payments to Plaintiff after September 28, 2015, but also denied she failed to pay for legal services rendered after this date because she had already overpaid for previous services. (See Shah Decl., Exh. B, p. 11.) As this was not an unqualified admission, she was obligated to respond to FI No. 17.1. In her response, she preliminary objected to the interrogatory on the ground of premature expert discovery. In addition, without waiving this objection, she provided the following substantive response. With respect to subpart (b), which requests identification of facts supporting her response, Defendant responded: “See Exhibit A [the spreadsheet consisting of hundreds of disputed billing entries] to Defendants’ Response to Special [sic] Interrogatories, Set One.” (Shah Decl., Exh. C, p. 7.) With respect to subpart (c), which requests the names and contact information of all individuals with knowledge of these facts, Defendant listed the names of various individuals. With respect to subpart (d), which requests identification of all documents supporting her response, Defendant referenced the billing records along with the “pleadings, notes, memoranda, and papers prepared and/or filed in the underlying litigation identified in each billing entry” she disputed in Exhibit A. (Shah Decl., Exh. C, pg. 7.) Plaintiff takes issue with the response to subparts (b) and (d).

With respect to her objection to this interrogatory, Defendant does not attempt to defend it. As such, the prematurity objection is overruled. (See Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [responding party must justify its objections].)

Turning to the substance of the response, with respect to subpart (b), Plaintiff argues Defendant’s supporting facts are insufficient because they consist of a sole reference to Exhibit A, which is merely a detailed list of all billing entries in dispute without any reference to specific facts explaining why such entries are claimed to be excessive, duplicative or unnecessary.

Each answer to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to a party permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, if an interrogatory requires reference to a document, the responding party should identify it and summarize its contents so that the answer itself is fully responsive to the interrogatory. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784.) Here, Defendant’s answer references Exhibit A but does not summarize the exhibit such that her answer is fully responsive to the interrogatory. As indicated before, Exhibit A is a document Defendant previously produced in discovery that merely lists each billing entry in dispute, the date it was made, the staff member who billed for the work, the amount that was billed and the ground upon which Plaintiff disputes the charge (i.e. excessive/inflated, duplicate billing, unnecessary etc.). It contains a long list of disputed time entries but neither lists the tasks with which they are associated nor the factual grounds detailing the reasons she contends the charges were excessive.

In opposition, Defendant argues the invoices Plaintiff sent her, which are in its possession, are the primary source of factual information on which she is basing her claims. She also argues she has since provided Plaintiff with an expert report that factually substantiates her assertion she was overbilled. These contentions are unpersuasive. First, as discussed, despite its possession of the billing invoices sent to Defendant, Plaintiff still has no way of determining the facts on which Defendant is basing her claim that various billing entries were excessive or inflated. Second, the fact Defendant later provided an expert report to Plaintiff documenting the factual basis of her overbilling claim is not relevant because this report was not included in her original responses. As such, the bare reference to Exhibit A in response to subpart (b) of FI No. 17.1 does not enable Plaintiff to discern the facts supporting Defendant’s assertion overbilling occurred and is therefore not responsive to this portion of interrogatory.

With respect to subpart (d), it argues the documents specified as supportive of the response are not identified with sufficient particularity such that they can be found within the parties’ document production. Plaintiff’s arguments are well-taken with respect to the response to subpart (b) of FI No. 17.1

In contrast, Defendant’s identification of documents supportive of her response in subpart (d) is sufficient. In her response to this portion of the interrogatory, she references “pleadings, notes, memoranda, and papers prepared and/or filed in the underlying litigation identified in each billing entry” she disputed in Exhibit A. As Plaintiff states in its motion, this description leads it to pull all litigation documents created or filed in connection with each disputed billing entry listed in Exhibit A. As such, this description permits it to locate and find the documents Defendant is relying on to support her response and nothing more is required.

Accordingly, a further response to FI No. 17.1 as it relates to RFA No. 22 is warranted, but only with respect to subpart (b).

2. FI No. 17.1 Relative to RFA Nos. 24-28

RFA Nos. 24-28 asked Defendant to admit each task she disputed as unnecessary, duplicative or excessively billed was, in fact, necessary, not duplicative and not excessively billed. Defendant responded to these RFAs with objections only and did not respond to FI No. 17.1 relative to these requests. For the reasons stated before, RFA Nos. 24-28 are not code-compliant because they violated the self-containment rule. Because the Court is denying the motion to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 24-28, it necessarily follows that Defendant is not obligated to respond to FI No. 17.1 as related to these requests.

3. Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to FI No. 17.1 is GRANTED as to RFA No. 22 but DENIED relative to RFA Nos. 24-28. To the extent the motion is granted, Defendant shall serve a verified code-compliant further response, without objections, within 20 calendar days of this Order.

C. Special Interrogatories

A party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling further responses if that party deems an answer is evasive or incomplete, the exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to SI Nos. 3, 6, 12-18, 21-24, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48, 51 and 53. In the notice of motion, the stated grounds are that the responses are incomplete and evasive; there is no mention of the objections raised by Defendant. However, the motion to compel makes clear Plaintiff is arguing the responses were incomplete and evasive and/or the objections to the SIs are without merit. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.)

1. SI Nos. 3, 6, 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 32 and 34

SI Nos. 3, 6, 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 32 and 34 seek the identification of documents supporting Defendant’s cross-claims for breach of contract and common counts, and her contentions Plaintiff overbilled her for work, knew its fees would exceed the estimate given her, failed to follow her instructions and generally made misrepresentations to her. With respect to SI Nos. 3 and 6, Defendant responded with a mix of objections and substantive responses. With respect to SI Nos. 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 32 and 34, she provided substantive responses only.

As an initial matter, Defendant objected to SI Nos. 3 and 6 on the grounds they are compound and disjunctive, and not self-contained in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d). However, in her opposition, she does not attempt to defend these objections. As such, they are overruled. (See Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98 [responding party must justify its objections].)

Turning to the substance of the responses, Plaintiff argues the answers are insufficient because Defendant does not identify documents responsive to these requests with sufficient particularity such that they can be found within the production. The Court disagrees.

With respect to SI Nos. 3, 6, 32 and 34, which sought the identification of documents supporting Defendant’s cross-claims and contentions Plaintiff did not follow her instructions, unnecessarily billed her, and made false representations to her, she responded by referring to “Emails bates stamped 1-59 which have been previously produced.” (Shah Decl., Exh. D, pg. 6, 7, 12, 15, 18.) She also referenced billing records generated by Plaintiff along with “pleadings, notes, memoranda, and papers prepared and/or filed in the underlying litigation identified in each billing entry that responding party contends constitutes overbilling, as set forth in the complied [sic] list of billing entries previously provided.” (See Id.) With respect to SI Nos. 12, 14, 16, 18, 22 and 24, Defendant’s responses are substantially similar except that they also state that Exhibit A, the list of billing entries that constituted overcharging, is attached to the discovery responses and incorporated by reference.

The Court finds that these responses are adequate. Not only does Defendant identify specific e-mails stamped with particular bates numbers, she points to the litigation documents she is relying on to support her contentions – namely, those documents created and filed in connection with each billing entry she disputes. This description identifies the documents with sufficient particularity to enable Plaintiff to find them. In fact, Plaintiff’s own motion makes clear it understands this response requires it to look at the documents implicated by Exhibit A’s list of disputed billing entries. As such, Plaintiff’s argument it is unable to identify the documents referenced by Defendant is not well-taken and no further responses to these interrogatories are warranted.

2. SI Nos. 13 and 15

SI Nos. 13 and 15 request Defendant to identify each fact supporting her contention that Plaintiff performed unnecessary legal work or duplicated work to generate billable time. In her response, Defendant objected to the interrogatories to the extent they seek disclosure of expert opinions, which she contends is premature at this time. She also substantively responded by stating these facts are detailed in the billing records and also referenced the list of disputed entries listed in Exhibit A. She further elaborates by stating “[Exhibit A] sets forth the instances of vague and block billing entries, staffing more attorneys than necessary for various tasks, engaging in tasks that are not reasonably calculated to obtain Pokarny’s (sic) litigation objections (sic), and expending more time than necessary to draft documents or complete projects.” (Shah Decl., Exh. D, pg. 10, 11.)

With respect to her objection to these interrogatories, Defendant does not attempt to defend it. As such, the prematurity objection is overruled. (See Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [responding party must justify its objections].)

Turning to the substance of the responses, Plaintiff argues the mere identification of Exhibit A is insufficient to illuminate the facts supporting Defendant’s assertions it performed unnecessary or duplicative work because Exhibit A amounts to nothing more than a list of Defendant’s allegations that gratuitous work was done on her case. This argument is well-taken.

As previously stated, each answer to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to a party permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) When an interrogatory requires reference to a document, the responding party should identify it and summarize its contents so that the answer itself is fully responsive to the interrogatory. (Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783-784.)

Here, though Defendant references Exhibit A and states it sets forth instances of block billing, overstaffing and performing unnecessary work, Plaintiff still does not come away with an answer that is fully responsive to the interrogatory. Exhibit A contains hundreds of billing entries labeled by Defendant as “unnecessary” or “duplicate billing.” (See Shah Decl., Exh. A.) Only a handful entries describe the underlying factual basis for her contention that the subject tasks were unnecessary or duplicative, i.e. the billing was duplicative because three attorneys met to discuss case strategy or unnecessary because Plaintiff billed for time getting a new attorney up to speed. The vast majority of the entries are not coupled with any facts explaining why they are disputed as unnecessary or duplicative and Defendant’s response does not summarize the factual underpinnings of her claims such that her answer is fully responsive to the interrogatory. (See Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783-784.) Though she insists that all the facts are there, this is clearly not the case.

Therefore, further responses to SI Nos. 13 and 15 are warranted.

3. SI Nos. 17, 21 and 23

SI Nos. 17, 21 and 23 request that Defendant identify each fact supporting her contention Plaintiff failed to follow client instructions and billed her for time spent not working on her matter or on tasks unnecessary to pursue her claims. With respect to SI Nos. 21 and 23, Defendant objected to the interrogatory on the ground it prematurely sought disclosure of an expert opinion. No objections were made as to SI No. 17. Defendant also provided substantive responses to each of these interrogatories.

With respect to her objection to these interrogatories, Defendant does not attempt to defend it. As such, the prematurity objection is overruled. (See Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [responding party must justify its objections].)

Turning to the substance of Defendant’s responses, Plaintiff argues they are insufficient because they are evasive, vague and conclusory restatements of Defendant’s contentions. The Court agrees with respect to SI Nos. 17 and 23 but disagrees with respect to SI No. 21.

Each answer to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to a party permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) In response to SI No. 17, requesting that Defendant identify each fact supporting her contention Plaintiff failed to follow client instructions, she responds she advised Plaintiff she was only interested in settlement and not trial but Plaintiff nonetheless spent substantial time and expense performing tasks not reasonably directed towards achieving the objective of settlement and further refused to abide by her stated budget. Defendant does not further explain what specific tasks Plaintiff performed which she felt were not reasonably directed towards her goal of settlement. Her response is therefore not complete and straightforward and a further response is warranted. Similarly, with respect to SI No. 23, Defendant is requested to identify each fact supporting her contention Plaintiff billed her for time unnecessary to pursue her claims. In response, she states Plaintiff was simultaneously representing other clients alongside her but there was no indication the time spent working on each client’s matter was prorated in any way. This part of the response is complete and straightforward. However, Defendant also goes on to repeat her response to SI No. 17 and generally asserts, without further explanation, that Plaintiff spent time on tasks not reasonably directed towards achieving her goal of settlement and not trial. As with her response to SI No. 17, this statement is not complete and straightforward and a further response is warranted.

However, with respect to SI No. 21, in response to Plaintiff’s request she identify each fact supporting her contention it billed her for time spent not working on her matter, Defendant references the simultaneous representation of her and other clients without any indication the time spent working on their respective matters was prorated. She also states block billing time entries and excessive time spent working on her case lead to an inference Plaintiff billed her for time spent not working on her matter. The Court finds this answer is sufficiently complete and straightforward as it is responsive to the interrogatory without need for further explanation or elaboration.

Accordingly, further responses to SI Nos. 17 and 23, but not SI No. 21, are warranted.

4. SI Nos. 36, 38, 40, 42 and 44

SI Nos. 36, 38, 40, 42 and 44 request that for each task identified by Defendant as unnecessary, duplicative or excessively billed in her responses to SI Nos. 35, 37, 39, 41 and 43, she explain in detail all bases for her contentions. Each interrogatory therefore references the interrogatory immediately preceding it and attempts to incorporate its response. Defendant objected to these interrogatories on the grounds they are compound, conjunctive and disjunctive; not self-contained in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d); and prematurely seek an expert opinion. She provided no substantive responses.

With respect to her objections to these interrogatories, Defendant only attempts to justify her objection on the ground they are “not full and complete in and of [themselves].” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.060 (“Section 2033.060”), subd. (d).) The Court will address this argument below; as to the undefended objections, they are overruled. (See Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [responding party must justify its objections].)

Defendants’ arguments in support of her opposition and Plaintiff’s contentions in its motion parallel those raised in relation to RFA Nos. 24-28, where Defendant contended the requests were not self-contained. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.060, subd. (a). and 2033.060, subd. (d).) As with the requests for admission, Defendant’s arguments are well-taken. Defendant’s responses to SI Nos. 35, 37, 39, 41 and 43 implicated hundreds of tasks performed on her case, which she contends were unnecessary, duplicative or excessively billed. Therefore, when Plaintiff then requested in SI Nos. 36, 38, 40, 42 and 44 that Defendant explain the factual bases for her contentions “separately for each task identified” in her responses to the immediately preceding interrogatories, this violated the requirement of self-containment and did so in a way that violated the rule of 35. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (a)(1); see also Clement, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at 1282.)

Though Plaintiff did submit a declaration of necessity accompanying her service of 57 interrogatories, 57 interrogatories is a far cry from the hundreds of interrogatories she would have had to propound if she had separated out these requests into ones that were self-contained and limited to each individual task Defendant disputed. Defendant contends that if Plaintiff had served a declaration indicating its intention to serve hundreds of special interrogatories on her, she surely would have sought a protective order.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues each of these requests are self-contained because they cover a single topic: namely, facts supporting Defendant’s contention that tasks performed by Plaintiff were unnecessary, duplicative or excessively billed. This argument is not persuasive and is controverted by the explicit language of these requests. These requests do not ask generally about facts supporting Defendant’s contentions but demand a “separate[]” response “for each task identified” which she contended was unnecessary, duplicative, or excessive (McDaniel Decl., Exh. 14, pg. 7.)

Therefore, Defendant’s objection to SI Nos. 36, 38, 40, 42, and 44 on the ground they were not self-contained has merit and no further response is required.

5. SI Nos. 48 and 51

SI Nos. 48 and 51 request that Defendant identify all evidence supporting her contentions that she provided specific instructions to Plaintiff regarding how to proceed in the lawsuit and Plaintiff knowingly concealed material facts from her. For purposes of these interrogatories, Plaintiff defines “evidence” as including all facts, witnesses and documents. In response, Defendant objected on the grounds the interrogatories are compound, conjunctive, disjunctive and not self-contained in violation of Section 2030.060. She also objects that the term “evidence” as defined in this interrogatory effectively turns the request into three separate interrogatories. Without waiving these objections, she also provides substantive responses. With respect to SI No. 48, Defendant lists the names of individuals who have information regarding the evidence supporting her contentions and also states that various documents support her assertions. Her recitation of supportive documents is substantially similar to her response to SI Nos. 3, 6, 32 and 34, where she references “Emails bates stamped 1-59,” billing records and litigation documents related to each disputed billing entry in her Exhibit A. (Shah Decl., Exh. D, pg. 23-24.) With respect to SI No. 51, she references Exhibit A and states that the billing entries listed as excessive, unnecessary or duplicative are demonstrative of instances in which Plaintiff was excessively billing or billing for work not spent on Defendant’s matter. (See Id. at pg. 25). She also states Plaintiff incurred costs, including deposition costs, without disclosing and explaining such costs to her.

With respect to her objections to these interrogatories, Defendant does not attempt to defend them. As such, they are overruled. (See Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98 [responding party must justify its objections].)

Turning to the substance of her responses, Plaintiff argues further responses are required because broad references to general categories of documents are insufficient to illuminate it as to what evidence Defendant is relying on to support her contentions. The Court agrees.

As stated before, each answer to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to a party permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) When an interrogatory requires reference to a document, the responding party should identify it and summarize its contents so that the answer itself is fully responsive to the interrogatory. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783-784.) Because Plaintiff defines “evidence” as including all facts in support of Defendant’s contentions, the reference to broad categories of documents in response, without a summary of their contents, is insufficient. Defendant’s response does not enable Plaintiff to come away with an answer that is fully responsive to its interrogatories.

Therefore, further responses to SI Nos. 48 and 51 are warranted.

6. SI No. 53

SI No. 53 requests that Defendant explain the scope of work Plaintiff was authorized to perform on her behalf after each instance she claims she advised it to do only settlement-related work on her case. For context, SI No. 53 references SI No. 52 in which Defendant is requested to list each date she told Plaintiff to stop doing non-settlement related work on her case. In response, Defendant objected to the interrogatory on the grounds the interrogatories are compound, conjunctive, disjunctive and not self-contained in violation of Section 2030.060. She also provided a substantive response, stating that from the outset her express objectives were to settle her case without going to trial and stay within her stated budget. She also stated she authorized Plaintiff to file oppositions to five motions for summary judgment.

With respect to her objections to this interrogatory, Defendant does not attempt to defend them. As such, they are overruled. (See Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [responding party must justify its objections].)

Turning to the substance of her response, Plaintiff argues it is incomplete in contravention of Section 2030.220. Its argument is well-taken.

Each answer to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to a party permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Here, in response to SI No. 53, Defendant listed four dates on which she told Plaintiff to stop doing all non-settlement related work on her case (i.e. May 2013, and April, August and September 2015.) (Shah Decl., Exh. D, pg. 26.) In reference to that response, SI No. 53 then requests her to explain the scope of work she authorized Plaintiff to do on her behalf after each of these dates. Defendant’s response does not answer this question. Instead, she refers generally to her desire to settle the case instead of going to trial and discusses the authorization of four oppositions to motions for summary judgment. These statements are made without reference to any of the four dates on which she advised Plaintiff to stop doing non-settlement related work on her case. As such, her answer is not complete or responsive to the interrogatory.

Therefore, a further response to SI No. 53 is warranted.

7. Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED as to SI Nos. 13, 15, 17, 23, 48, 51 and 53 but DENIED as to SI Nos. 3, 6, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, and 44. To the extent the motion is granted, Defendant shall serve verified code-compliant further responses, without objections, within 20 calendar days of this Order.