Case Name: Shustak Reynolds & Partners, P.C. v. Cindy Shi
Case No.: 17CV310812

Before the court are two motions to compel: further responses to form interrogatories (Line 2) and further responses to requests for admission (Line 3). Both request monetary sanctions, although neither notice of motion appears to comply fully and strictly with the notice requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §2023.040 and applicable case law, as the notice does not specify the code sections under which sanctions are sought.

Both motions to compel are somewhat of a curiosity, as it appears that plaintiff did, in fact, initially provide substantive responses that substantially respond to the requests for admission and interrogatory at issue. Plaintiff has provided substantive factual responses that comply with §§2033.210/220 and 2030.210/220. Defendant takes issue with plaintiff’s assertion of “general objections,” as well as specific objections to which the responses “are subject.”

The Court finds there is nothing evasive or incomplete on the face of the substantive responses. However, defendant’s counsel is arguably correct, that general objections are not authorized by the law, and that the specific objections to which the responses are “subject” are not well-taken. None of the objections vitiate the completeness and directness of the factual responses. The Court views these objections as unnecessary, without any legal effect, without authorization in the law, and essentially surplusage. These motions, brought solely on the basis of these objections, should have been unnecessary had counsel for both sides meaningfully met and conferred by actually talking to one another about the concerns raised by defendant’s counsel.

The Court will GRANT the motions, but only in part. The Court orders the general objections stricken, and overrules each of the specific objections (apparently since withdrawn), particularly those asserting vagueness, ambiguity, and prematurity. No further substantive responses are warranted, and none will be ordered on these two motions. (See §§2033.230 (a), (b); 2030.210(a)(3).)

Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED, based upon improper notice, lack of adequate meet and confer efforts, and as no further substantive responses are ordered. Plaintiff’s request for costs as monetary sanctions are DENIED, also based upon improper notice, and as they appear to be based solely on §128.5, as they do not demonstrate a factual basis on which the court can find the motions are “bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” Although the court does conclude the motions could and perhaps should have been unnecessary had both sides meaningfully and adequately met and conferred, this failure alone does not warrant monetary sanctions to either party, on these motions.