Case Number: KC065940    Hearing Date: August 22, 2014    Dept: J

Re: Partee Insurance Associates, Inc. v. Charles Jimison (KC065940)

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1-10; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Defendant Charles Jimison

Respondent: Plaintiff Partee Insurance Associates, Inc.

POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK; Reply OK

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, who was formerly employed by Plaintiff as an insurance broker, misappropriated Plaintiff’s client and proprietary information, and also earned secret commissions. Plaintiff commenced this action on 4/12/13. The First Amended Complaint, filed on June 10, 2013, asserts causes of action for:

1. Breach of Contract
2. Conversion
3. Wrongful Use of Thing or Knowledge Acquired in Employment
4. Uniform Trade Secrets Acts Violation
5. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
6. Unfair Business Practices
7. Breach of Oral Contract
8. Fraud

FSC is set for 9/29/14. Jury trial is set for 10/7/14.

Defendant Charles Jimison (“Defendant”) moves pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010, et seq. for an order compelling Plaintiff Partee Insurance Associates, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) to serve verified further responses to the first set of special interrogatories, nos. 1-10. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,110.00 against Plaintiff and its counsel.

CCP 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories 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).) Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(a),(b).)

TIMELINESS:

The motion was timely served on July 8, 2014; 41 days after Plaintiff served its responses by mail on May 28, 2014. (Motion, Mollis Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 2.)

MEET AND CONFER:

The Declaration of Charles A. Mollis, Esq. demonstrates that counsel for Defendant attempted to resolve the issues informally with opposing counsel before the motion was filed. (Motion, Mollis Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exhs. 3-5.)

Attorney Lee Brown, counsel for Plaintiff, in opposition, represents that Mr. Mollis’ effort to meet and confer arrived during an extremely busy time for Plaintiff’s counsel and that he had been called out of town on an urgent family matter; he explained his situation to Mr. Mollis and advised him that he would not be able to respond to his letter any sooner than July 2, at the earliest; he also granted him an extension of time to file a motion to compel to July 28, 2014, in the event after meeting and conferring that they were unable to come to an accord; Mr. Mollis responded on July 3, 2014 by telling him that he could not wait for the meet and confer process to take place and said that he would file his motion but then take it off calendar if he received satisfactory supplemental responses; and that preceding the filing of the opposition, Mr. Brown’s mother had surgery and that she passed away prior to August 1, 2014. (Opposition, Brown Decl.)

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NOS. 1-10:

Plaintiff responded to all of the interrogatories by asserting objections only. If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Mr. Brown represents that although he believes the objections are well-taken, he has spent considerable time drafting further responses to the interrogatories and he expects to have the further responses served on defense counsel prior to the August 22, 2014 hearing date. (Opposition, Brown Decl. ¶ 12.)

Thus, assuming that this is done, the motion will be deemed moot.

SANCTIONS:

CCP § 2030.300(d) authorizes 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.

Based on the circumstances of this case, the court declines to award monetary sanctions so long as further verified responses have been served prior to the hearing.