2017-00215887-CU-MC

Muhammad Chaudhry vs. Superior Farms, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories (Abeda Chaudhry)

Filed By: Swanson, Robert D.

Defendant Ellensburg Lamb Company, erroneously sued as Superior Farms, Inc.’s (“Superior Farms”) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from plaintiff Abeda Chaudhry and plaintiff Muhammad Chaudhry are granted.

Plaintiffs bring a proposed class action, contending that defendant falsely mislabeled several different lamb meet products as “Halal Lamb Meat,” representing that the lamb was slaughtered by adhering to the required Islamic Religious Standards. Plaintiffs allege that the lambs were electrically stunned before they were slaughtered, in violation of one of the requirements for the meat to be considered Halal.

Defendants seek responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 5-14, 16-19, and 22-43. In December 2017, when the responses were due, plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to the discovery because the plaintiffs were out of the country until mid February. Defendant gave two extensions of time to respond. However, Plaintiffs served objections to the special interrogatories, contending that they violated the parties’ agreement to “phase” discovery. The parties had agreed to proceed first on class certification issues, followed by discovery on the merits of the causes of action. In turn, Defendants contend that the requested discovery seeks information relevant to class certification.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs do not address in detail the actual objections, other than as to No. 36. Rather, plaintiff contends that defendant did not adequately meet and confer on each interrogatory and that the “meet and confer” related only to whether plaintiff would be given an extension until after the plaintiffs returned to the country. The Court has reviewed the meet and confer correspondence and finds that the defendant adequately met and conferred.

Plaintiffs are now able to provided substantive responses instead of objections. Plaintiffs admit they had no choice but to object to the interrogatories to avoid waiver of the objections. Plaintiffs’ objections on the basis of vague, overbroad, and ambiguous are overruled. Plaintiff’s opposition argument that the interrogatories improperly require a narrative response is rejected as this was not raised as an objection, and is therefore waived. See Brown v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 709.

The Court finds that the requested discovery seeks responses to interrogatories that are relevant to Superior Farms response to a class certification motion. The questions may lead to admissible evidence as to the adequacy and typicality of plaintiffs’ claims.

Under the California Code of Civil Procedure, a party may obtain discovery concerning “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539,1546. “[I] nformation is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement….” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Under the Legislature’s very

liberal and flexible standard of relevancy, any doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542 (quoting Pacific Tel & Tel Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173).

A party responding to a special interrogatory must provide responses that are “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(b). Parties cannot provide partial answers or conclusory and evasive responses to avoid answering explicit questions. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771,

783 (stating that “where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response”).

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide verified further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 5-14, 16-19, and 22-43, without objections, on or before April 13, 2018.

No sanctions were requested, therefore none are ordered.