18-CLJ-03736 MICHAEL PAIM VS. REGINALD LAWRENCE, III, ET AL.

MICHAEL PAIM REGINALD LAWRENCE
SHANNON GALLAGHER JON E. HELLESEN

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS BY MICHAEL PAIM TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court treats the present motion as timely. Plaintiff’s failure to file the motion by February 8, 2019, resulted from reasonable neglect. The Court also deems that Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer were sufficient.

Form Interrogatory 106.1. Granted. Defendant’s response states only that he is not seeking compensation “at this time.” Defendant shall supplement his response to indicate whether he incurred any injuries or damage, and describe the injuries or damage, regardless of whether he is seeking compensation at this time.

Form Interrogatory 115.2. Granted. Even without discovery, Defendant highly likely has knowledge of some facts to support his general denial and affirmative defenses. Signing a paper filed with the Court certifies that, to the best of the person’s knowledge, “The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.” (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 128.7.) Having filed a signed Answer, Defendant’s counsel certified that Defendant’s general denial and affirmative defenses have evidentiary support. Defendant shall supplement his response to set forth all facts support his contention that he is not responsible for the collision.

Form Interrogatory 115.3. Granted. If Defendant has any information, he must disclose it; if he has no information, he must disclose that fact. For example, if Defendant asserts that pothole caused the collision, he can identify the person or entity who purportedly failed to fill the pothole. Otherwise, he must indicate what steps he took to identify that person/entity. (Code of Civ. Proc. 2030.220 (interrogatories shall be answered to the extent possible).)

Form Interrogatory 102.1 and 120.5 Granted. Providing the address of Defendant’s counsel is insufficient. Defendant shall supplement his response by providing his full address.

Form Interrogatory 112.1. Granted. Defendant shall identify the persons he describes as “drivers,” “passengers,” and “their representatives” and provide their addresses, and “specify his or her area of knowledge.” Defendant is not required to respond to this interrogatory concerning facts or events occurring after the collision; the definition of “INCIDENT” is defined as circumstances and events “giving rise to” this action. The Complaint does not allege any acts occurring after the collision as the basis for this action.

Form Interrogatory 112.2 and 112.3. Granted, in part. A list of witnesses “interviewed” by counsel falls within the attorney work product protection. (Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214, 217.) Defendant need not identify any witnesses interviewed by his counsel. However, any statement prepared independently by a witness is not work product. (Id. at 217-18.) Defendant shall supplement his response to the extent any witness provided a written or recorded statement other than at the request of counsel. Further, Defendant’s response, “unknown,” is evasive because it is unclear whether “unknown” refers to a witness’s identity, a witness’s address, or whether any statements were given at all. Defendant shall supplement his response to explain clearly and in detail what “unknown” means in these responses.

Form Interrogatory 114.1. Granted. Identification of persons does not call for work product or any privileged communication. Defendant’s response that he has “no information responsive to this request” is vague. It is unclear whether he means he does not contend that any person violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation, or that he has no information about the person who did so. Defendant shall supplement the response to indicate whether he makes any such contention, or he merely has no information regarding the persons who violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 2030.220, subd. (a) & (b).)

Form Interrogatory 120.1. Denied.

Defendant shall serve verified supplemental responses as set forth in this ruling, no later than April 30, 2019, or two weeks after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever date is later.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted. Defendant Reginald Lawrence shall pay a monetary sanction of $3,500 to Plaintiff Michael Paim, no later than April 23, 2019, or one week after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever date is later.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.