Case Number: BC668782 Hearing Date: April 23, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

Joshua Romero,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAcific Bell Telephone Company, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC668782

Hearing Date: April 23, 2018

[Tentative] order RE:

Motions to compel further responses

BACKGROUND

Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company (“Defendant”) has filed motions to compel further responses from Plaintiff Joshua Romero (“Plaintiff”) to: Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one; Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), set one; and Requests for Admission (“RFA”), set one.

An Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was noticed for March 20, 2018. Defendant provided proof of service on Plaintiff of notice that the IDC was set for March 20, 2018. The proof of service indicates that Plaintiff was served on March 8, 2018. Defendant appeared for the March 20, 2018 IDC. However, Plaintiff did not attend the IDC on March 20, 2018.

Accordingly, the Court addresses the remaining discovery at issue: the RFA, FROG, SROG, and RPD.

DISCUSSION

Motions to Compel

The Court has read the discovery requests and objections. Defendant asks straightforward questions that are typical of discovery in a motor vehicle collision lawsuit. For example, the FROG are judicially approved interrogatories and seek basic information from Plaintiff about his allegations and evidence. The only responses Plaintiff has provided are objections. Plaintiff has made no attempt to respond to the requests in addition to the objections.

Ordinarily, the Court would provide a ruling as to each question individually, but Plaintiff has provided boilerplate objections to each discovery request. There is no attempt to distinguish between requests or to tailor objections to the subject matter of the questions. The Court finds that the objections Plaintiff has asserted are without merit. The objecting party has the burden to show that the interrogatory is inquiring into improper information. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.) Here, Plaintiff has not appeared at the IDC to resolve these issues informally. Nor has Plaintiff filed any opposition to any of the motions to compel further.

Plaintiff provides nothing to support the validity of any of the objections to the discovery requests. Plaintiff fails to substantiate how any of the discovery requests violate the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. The discovery requests do not ask for information or documents that are inappropriate in an action such as this. Plaintiff also fails to substantiate how any of the requests are protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine as no client-attorney communications are being sought and no writings, impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research/theories are requested.

Therefore, Defendant’s motions to compel further are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide code-compliant responses to the RFA, FROG, SROG, and RPD, without objection, within 30 days.

Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff for misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions have been properly noticed against Plaintiff. The requests are granted. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the IDC and Plaintiff’s failure to provide responses beyond the objections, the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate here. The Court grants sanctions for 9 hours to appear at the IDC, prepare all motions and papers, and appear at the motions hearing, at $175.00 per hour, plus four $60 filing fees for a total of $1,815.00. Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,815.00 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motions to compel further responses to the RFA, FROG, SROG, and RPD are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide code-compliant responses to the RFA, FROG, SROG, and RPD, without objection, within 30 days.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,815.00 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

All parties should note that the hearing on this motion will take place at the Court’s new location: Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order, including the Court’s new location and new department number, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: April 23, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court