Rewa Kumar v. Deepak Ji, et al.		CASE NO. 113CV245770
DATE: 25 September 2014	TIME: 9:00	LINE NUMBER: 10

This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Wednesday 24 September 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 25 September 2014, the motion of Plaintiff Rewa Kumar to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.[1]

Defendants Deepak Kumar[2] and Deepak Mantra Registered (hereinafter “Defendants”) filed formal opposition to the motion.[3]

I.       Statement of Facts.

This matter arises out of a dispute over who originally wrote a particular book. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant plagiarized her text and ideas and published a book, making money that should rightfully have gone to Plaintiff. Defendant denies the allegations.

II.      Discovery Dispute.

On 29 May 2014, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set Two on Defendants Deepak Kumar and Deepak Mantra Registered. Defendants served initial verified responses sometime prior to 28 August 2014. Defendants served verified supplemental responses on 28 August 2014.

On 3 September 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses.

III.     Analysis.

A.  Meet and Confer Obligation

Parties have the right to propound interrogatories upon opposing parties seeking responses answered under oath. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010(a). These interrogatories can seek information regarding the facts relating to the cause of action, contentions of the opposing party, or to facts, witnesses, or writings upon which the contention is based. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010(b). A proper response includes a statement, under oath, that contains the answer to the information sought. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210(a)(1). The party, if appropriate, may exercise a right to respond with the production of a document. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210(a)(2). Alternatively, the party may provide an objection to the interrogatory. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210(a)(3). An interrogatory response must contain at least one of these, but may contain a combination of two or all three. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210(a). Responses shall be as complete and straightforward as possible. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(a). If the respondent does not have personal knowledge that would sufficiently answer the interrogatory, the response must indicate such. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c). Barring an extension, a party has 30 days to respond to interrogatories. Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.260(a), 2030.270(a). An untimely response waives all objections. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290(a).

A motion to compel further responses shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  Code Civ. Proc.  §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b). A reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than argument with opposing counsel.  It requires that the parties present the merits of their respective positions with candor, specificity, and support.  Townsend v. Superior Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435, 1439.  The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the “reasonable and good faith attempt” standard depends upon the circumstances of the case.  Obregon v. Superior Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.  The court has discretion to deny discovery absent efforts to meet and confer, but must consider whether a less drastic remedy is appropriate given the circumstances presented.  See Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439, Obregon, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 434.

Plaintiff served its discovery requests on Defendant on 29 May 2014. Defendant presumably responded once before 28 August 2014, as Plaintiff brings this motion based on supplementary responses that were served 28 August 2014. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that multiple communications transpired between parties since 24 July 2014 and 3 September 2014, the date of the filing of this motion, but Plaintiff does not include any copies of the correspondence. Plaintiff provided correspondence dated 7 May 2014, before the discovery was propounded. There is not enough before the Court to conclude that Plaintiff made a good faith attempt to meet and confer.

The Court is especially troubled by Plaintiff filing a motion less than a week after supplemental responses were received. Five days is typically not enough time to adequately confer and file a motion. The Court considered denying the motion on this ground, but Defendants did not raise the argument. Ordinarily, if an argument is not presented, it will not be considered.  See Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 618, 634, n.17, citing Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1987) 188 Cal. App. 3d 952, 968.

         B.  Motion to Compel Further Responses

A party may make a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories if it believes the other party provided evasive or incomplete answers to particular interrogatories. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a); Rules of Court, rules 3.1110(a), 3.1112(d)(3). This motion must include a memorandum of points and authorities. Cal Rules of Court, rules 3.1112(a)(3), 3.1113(a). Additionally, a Separate Statement including the text of the discovery sought to be compelled, the responses given, a statement of the legal reasons for further responses and an explanation of other definitions is required. Rule of Court 3.1345(a),(c). The motion must be filed within 45 days of a verified response or a supplemental verified response. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300(c).

A valid motion to compel further responses requires showing specific facts demonstrating good cause justifying the discovery sought. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b). Good cause is demonstrated by the moving party showing 1) relevance to the subject matter, for example how the information in the documents tends to prove or disprove an issue in the case; and 2) specific facts justifying discovery, for example, why the information is necessary for trial preparation or would prevent surprise at trial. Brown & Weil, Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 8:1495.6 [citing Kirkland v. Superior Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98]. Additional facts demonstrating there is no alternative source for the information is important, but not essential in every case to demonstrate good cause. Brown & Weil at § 8:1495.6.

Here, Plaintiff takes issue with eight responses, four from each Defendant. Each question asks for the amount of donations given by the party to Sunnyvale Temple in years from 2011 to 2014. Defendants made several objections, raising the issue of the question being overly broad in scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, raises privacy objections, and that the interrogatories are overly burdensome and harassing. Defendants further answered by stating that without waiver of those objections, Defendant does not believe he made donations related to the book “Divine Vastu Tips”, the book that Plaintiff accuses Defendant of plagiarizing.

Plaintiff argues that each objection was meritless, but sets forth no basis in her Separate Statement as to why the objections are meritless.[4] Plaintiff only states that each respective Defendant “provided no substantive and/or an evasive response and the objections are meritless as set forth herein.” (emphasis added) There is no “herein” in the Separate Statement, only the text of the interrogatory, the response, and the above stated reason for compelling response. Plaintiff, in a conclusory fashion, stated that the answers are evasive without discussing the legal or factual reasoning leading to that conclusion.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for the interrogatories, nor why the substantive response, not counting the objections, were insufficient. Plaintiff has not met her burden.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

         B.  Sanctions.

Plaintiff makes a request for monetary sanctions but was not successful in her motion.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

IV.     Order.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

 

________________­­­____________ DATED:

_________________________­­­________________________ HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara

 

[1] Rule of Court 3.1345(d) states: “A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.” Plaintiff’s notice of motion also references a motion to compel further responses to demands for the production of documents. That matter is not addressed in any other papers before the Court and the issue is waived.

[2] Defendant claims that Deepak Kumar was misnamed when sued as Deepak Ji. The Court will identify Mr. Kumar as such.

[3] Defendants’ opposition did not include a declaration and therefore the Court cannot consider any factual matters asserted in the opposition. See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1112(b); 3.1113(i),(j)

[4] A Separate Statement must be full and complete such that no person is required to review any other document to determine the full request and full response. A Separate Statement must include, inter alia, a statement of all the legal and factual reasons for compelling further responses or answers. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).