17-CIV-03376 PREFERRED BUILDING SERVICES INC. VS. PETER G. DELLANINI, ET AL.

PREFERRED BUILDING SERVICES INC. PETER G. DELLANINI
ROBERT A. GOODIN JOSEPH EHRLICH

PREFERRED BUILDING SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19 TENTATIVE RULING:

Preferred Building Services, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory No. 19 is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide further responses to the special interrogatory within 10 days of notice of entry of the order.

Interrogatory No. 19 asks Defendant/Cross-Complainant Dellanini to identify each instance in which he solicited work for himself or on behalf of TCS while he was employed by Preferred. The request appears to be directed at a core issue in this case – whether Dellanini improperly competed with Preferred for commercial cleaning jobs.

Although Dellanini asserted a number of boilerplate objections to the request, the primary objections asserted in his opposition to the motion are that the request is unduly burdensome, and that the request is duplicative because “TCS has already provided copies of all of the contracts between TCS and the former PBS customers at issue in this action.”

It is apparent from the interrogatory that Plaintiff seeks information about any commercial janitorial business that Dellanini may have solicited during the time he worked for Preferred – including the years from 1995, when he began working for Preferred, to 2007, when he formed TCS. Accordingly, Dellanini’s assertion that he has already produced emails and contracts from TCS, which did not exist until 2007, does not render the request duplicative. Further, CCP § 2030.230 requires that answers to interrogatories which would necessitate the preparation of a compilation or summary must “specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” Dellanini’s response to Interrogatory No. 19, which refers to the “documents produced in this action, including extensive email correspondence” does not comply with CCP § 2030.230.

The court finds that request is reasonably limited in time to the period in which Dellanini worked for Preferred. If Dellanini believes there is no information responsive to this request other than that which has been provided, he may respond accordingly.

Finally, the court finds that Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts were adequate. Dellanini claims that counsel never attempted to discuss this matter over the phone and that “Had an effort been made, an appropriate clarification or additional information could have been provided in compromise.” However, a meet and confer by letter is sufficient under CCP § 2023.010(i).

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.