Case Number: BC523057 Hearing Date: June 12, 2014 Dept: A11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

SEKUINI SEKUINI, et al., )
) Case Number BC 523057
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER AFTER HEARING
V )
) Date of Hearing:
RONOAIAH TUIASOSOPO, et al., ) June 12, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendants. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
___________________________________)

The motion to compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production by Defendant and Cross-Complainant Ecology Auto Parts, Inc., came on for hearing on June 12, 2014. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel of record, ____________________. Defendant Ecology Auto Parts, Inc., appeared through its counsel of record, ___________________. The Court, having received and reviewed the pleadings of record and evidence submitted and having considered argument of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED:

The Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further answers is MOOT as to further responses to form and special interrogatories, and DENIED as to further requests for production.

The motion to compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ form and special interrogatories by Defendant Aldo Rodolfo Orellana Gonzalez, came on for hearing on June 12, 2014. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel of record, ____________________. Defendant Aldo Gonzalez appeared through his counsel of record, ___________________. The Court, having received and reviewed the pleadings of record and evidence submitted and having considered argument of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED:

The Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further answers to form and special interrogatories is MOOT.

The court reserves jurisdiction over an award of sanctions as requested by either party pending further order of the court or trial of the action.

SO ORDERED this the _____ day of June, 2014.

______________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS,
JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

SEKUINI SEKUINI, et al., )
) Case Number BC 523057
Plaintiff, )
) STATEMENT OF DECISION
V )
) Date of Hearing:
RONOAIAH TUIASOSOPO, et al., ) June 12, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendants. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
___________________________________)

The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision:

1. The present case arises out of a traffic accident from March 23, 2012. Plaintiffs Sekuini Sekuini, Isaac Falealili, Kevin Moore, and Fiaalii Jeremiah Matau (“Plaintiffs”) were passengers in a vehicle operated by Defendant Ronoaiah Tuiasosopo (“Tuiasosopo”).

2. While attempting to execute a late freeway exit, Tuiasosopo maneuvered the vehicle in such a way as to collide with a vehicle owned by Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ecology Auto Parts, Inc. (“Ecology”), and operated by Defendant/Cross-Complainant Aldo Rodolfo Orellana Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) (collectively “Defendants”).

3. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Tuiasosopo, Defendants, and several other defendants on September 30, 2013, alleging a single cause of action for negligence. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on November 4, 2013, alleging causes of action for negligence and gross negligence/recklessness/malice.

4. On December 20, 2013, Defendants filed their cross-complaint alleging implied indemnity, equitable indemnity and contribution, declaratory relief, negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment.

5. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiffs served on Ecology Special Interrogatories (“Ecology S-Rogs”), Form Interrogatories (“Ecology Rogs”), and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), and served on Gonzalez Special Interrogatories (“Gonzalez S-Rogs”) and Form Interrogatories (“Gonzalez Rogs”).

6. Gonzalez served his responses to Gonzalez Rogs on January 22, 2014 and his responses to Gonzalez S-Rogs on January 31, 2014. Ecology served its responses to Ecology Rogs on January 22, 2014, and on January 31, 2014, served its responses to Ecology S-Rogs and RFPs. Plaintiffs faxed a meet and confer letter concerning these responses on February 11, 2014, which were apparently met with no response.

7. Plaintiffs filed the present motion on March 12, 2014. Defendants apparently offered a response to Plaintiffs’ informal discovery conference request and made responses as to the discovery requests. Subsequently, on April 2, 2014, Defendants served supplemental responses onto the Plaintiffs.

8. Defendants then filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs motions on May 30, 2014.

9. General considerations for motions to compel further answer – Under CCP §2030.300, a party may move for an order compelling further answers to an interrogatory if the responding party provides evasive or incomplete answers or where an objection is without merit or too general.

10. Timeliness – A motion to compel further answers under CCP §2030.300 must be brought within 45 days after service of response. CCP §2030.300(c). The motion was timely made.

11. Separate statement — CRC Rule 3.1345(a) requires motions to compel answers at a deposition be accompanied by a separate statement of disputed items. Plaintiff’s motion contains a separate statement and complies with this requirement.

12. Meet and confer – A motion to compel further answers must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under CCP §2016.040. Section 2016.040 requires the declaration to state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt was made to resolve each issue presented informally. There is no dispute between the parties that Plaintiffs have met their meet and confer obligations.

13. Mootness – Defendants argue that several of the discovery motions are made moot by reason of the supplemental responses provided by Defendants.

14. With respect to the Ecology S-Rogs and Gonzalez S-Rogs, the parties agree that S-Rog number 9 is no longer at issue for either defendant. Ecology S-Rogs Opposition, Exhibit F; Gonzalez S-Rogs Opposition, Exhibit F. In addition, S-Rogs number 19 through 23 call for the presence of “conspicuity materials” related to the truck from the accident. In demanding further responses, Plaintiffs requested, by their February 11 letter, that Defendants “identify by bates number each and every document that contains responsive information.” S-Rogs Opposition, Exhibit C. The supplemental responses provided on April 2 have done exactly that, listing document series ECO 000001 through 000115 as responsive to Plaintiffs’ request. In addition, Defendants also point to the photographs produced by the California Highway Patrol in response to subpoena as responsive to the request.

15. With respect to the Ecology and Gonzalez Rogs, Plaintiffs object on the grounds that Defendants have essentially provided evasive answers alleging an inability to admit or deny without providing facts to support such inability. Rogs Motion, Separate Statement, 3:25-28. The Rog in question, 17.1, calls for detailed information as to the basis for denying request for admission, to which several are challenged by Plaintiffs as being unresponsive.

16. In the supplemental responses served April 2, 2014, Defendants provided substantially more information detailing precisely the grounds of their denial, as well as the names of those who were believed to have information of such grounds. These responses are responsive to the request. As such, as with the Defendants’ supplement to the S-Rogs, have rendered the motion moot.

17. Accordingly, the motions to compel further responses to form and special interrogatories from Defendants is MOOT.

18. RFPs – Plaintiffs seek further production for RFPs 1, 2, 7, 9, 13, and 14. By letter dated, May 8, 2014, Plaintiffs appear to be satisfied with Defendants’ response to RFP 7. RFP Opposition, Exhibit F. In addition, Defendants represent that despite their initial responses to the RFPs, their responses to RFP numbers 1, 2, and 9 are complete and there is no privileged material being withheld. As such, the responses are full and complete, and Defendants have nothing more to produce.

19. As to RFP 13 and 14, Defendants represent that no documents responsive to the request exist beyond what has already been provided. For example, as to RFP number 14, although Plaintiffs argue that drivers logs “are virtually certain to exist given that drivers’ logs from other dates were provided,” RFP Motion, Separate Statement at 7:8-9, Defendants note that there are no such logs because “Gonzalez was not working on those days, and as a result, no such driver’s logs exist.” RFP Opposition at 4:25-26. Defendants cannot be ordered to produce documents that do not exist.

20. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to requests for production is DENIED.

21. The court reserves jurisdiction over an award of sanctions as requested by either party pending further order of the court or trial of the action.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the ______ day of June, 2014.

_____________________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS, JUDGE