Case Number: KC069535 Hearing Date: May 17, 2018 Dept: O

Lee v. Shamrock Escrow Services, Inc. et al. (KC069535)

Related to: Wells Fargo v. Lee (BC72101)

Defendant Shamrock Escrow Services, Inc.’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET 1) AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET 1)

Respondent: Plaintiff Lee

Defendant Shamrock Escrow Services, Inc.’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET 1)

Respondent: Plaintiff Lee

TENTATIVE RULING

1-2. Defendant Shamrock Escrow Services, Inc.’s discovery motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental responses within 10 days. Reduced sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,500.00 payable within 30 days.

Defendant Shamrock Escrow Services, Inc. moves to compel further responses to discovery pursuant to CCP 2030.300 and 2031.310.

CCP 2030.300 and 2031.310 allow a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories, document requests and request for admissions if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP 2030.300(b); 2031.310(b).)

The court finds Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and evasive.

Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (CCP 2030.220(a).) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (CCP 2030.220(b).) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (CCP 2030.220(c).)

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. (CCP 2031.230.)

Further, Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatory 17.1 refers to Requests for Admission where Plaintiff has asserted that she lacked information to admit or deny. However, “a party responding in this manner must also state that a reasonable inquiry was made to obtain sufficient information: i.e., “a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” [CCP § 2033.220(c)]” (The Rutter Group, Civil Procedure Before Trial at Secs. 8:1340-41.)

Plaintiff’s supplemental responses served on 5/4/18 are untimely and will not be considered for purposes of this motion. (The court does note, however, that Defendant contends Plaintiff’s supplemental responses are also deficient. Regardless, because supplemental responses are now being ordered, the parties will have a further opportunity to meet and confer on the responses.)

Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses within 10 days.

Sanctions: CCP 2030.300(d) and 2031.310(d) authorize the court to impose a sanction against any party/attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

Here, sanctions are appropriate because Plaintiff served incomplete responses to discovery. The court finds Defendant’s total request of $4,005.00 is excessive. Instead, reduced sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,500.00 payable within 30 days.