Case Number: BC666949 Hearing Date: December 12, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS; MOTION GRANTED, IN PART

This action arises out of a December 13, 2015 automobile accident. On March 2, 2018, Defendant Ashot Aloyan (“Defendant”) served Special Interrogatories, Set One and Demand for Documents, Set One on Plaintiff Ilya Ulian (“Plaintiff”). (Declaration of Lily Nhan, ¶ 3.) On May 6, 2018, Plaintiff served his responses. (Nhan Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses and monetary sanctions. On August 28, 2018, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference with the Court, but the issues were not resolved.

Upon receipt of responses to discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses are evasive, incomplete, an objection is without merit or too general. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) A motion for an order compelling further responses shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2)), and notice of the motion shall be given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing, or the party requesting the order waives any right to compel further responses (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).).

Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission must include a separate statement providing all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and response at issue. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and full response. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Plaintiff states supplemental responses were served on August 27, 2018. Plaintiff contends these supplemental responses moot the present motions and that it was a misuse of the discovery process to proceed with these motions after supplemental responses were served.

However, the supplemental responses were served approximately one week before these Motions were originally set for hearing and were still insufficient. Further, Plaintiff’s oppositions were not filed until the day before these Motions were originally set for hearing. The Court is unconvinced by Plaintiff’s claims that the parties agreed to “hold” everything until responses to subpoenas were received, especially where Plaintiff agreed at the IDC to produce further responses. Therefore, the Court makes the following orders:

Demand for Documents

A motion requesting an order compelling further responses to a demand for production of documents must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) If good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

As to Requests Nos. 11, 13, 14, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 50, and 52, the request for further responses is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further, code-compliant responses, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Specifically, Plaintiff must state that if documents are not within his custody or control, the names of those who Plaintiff believes may have the requested documents. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

As to Requests Nos. 2, 31, 32, 40-47, and 49, the request for further responses is DENIED. These requests seek documents relating to healthcare providers and medical treatment from 2005 to present. Plaintiff objected on grounds of invasion of privacy, that the request is burdensome, and that the request is overbroad as to time. The Court agrees that the time period of 2005 to present is overbroad. Defendant contends Plaintiff suffered injuries in a prior 2014 automobile accident. This does not explain why records are requested starting in 2005. Defendant failed to show good cause justifying the discovery sought.

Special Interrogatories

There is no “good cause” requirement where the requesting party is seeking further responses to interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.) Rather, the burden is the responding party to justify an objection or to show a response was complete. (Ibid; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

As to Requests Nos. 20-23, 25-29, 31-33, and 37, the request for further responses is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further, code-compliant responses, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Monetary Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand for production of documents, unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).) Monetary sanctions are GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $955.00 for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in preparing these Motions, participating in the IDC, and filing fees. This sanction is to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.