Case Number: BC690996 Hearing Date: August 31, 2018 Dept: 4

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant’s Judicial Council Form Interrogatories

The Court considered the moving papers. There is no opposition

Background

On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff Yahya Hedvat (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint alleging a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. The action arises from a two-vehicle parking lot collision that occurred on June 25, 2017 in Woodland Hills. Plaintiff alleges injuries resulting from the incident.

An informal discovery conference has not been held. Counsel for Defendant Michael Dosco (“Defendant”) declares he requested Plaintiff’s cooperation to hold an IDC, but received no response until Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant that he had substituted out and that Plaintiff would be proceeding in Pro Per. (Decl. RE: IDC, Wilton ¶ 6.)

Trial is set for July 22, 2019.

MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT

The motions must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2).) On February 14, 2018, Defendant served form interrogatories on Plaintiff. (Mtn. Decl. Wilton ¶ 4.) On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff served responses to the interrogatories. (Id. at ¶ 5.) On March 30, 2018, Defendant served a written letter requesting further responses citing the 34 vague responses and the objection to felony information. (Id. at ¶ 6.) On April 9, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant and mentioned he was “still working on preparing our client’s further responses to discovery.” (Id. at ¶ 7.) The parties agreed in writing to lengthen Defendant’s time to file a motion to compel further responses by 30 days. (Id. at ¶¶ 8–9.) Plaintiff failed to provide further responses and Defendant filed this motion to compel. (Id. at ¶ 11.)

The declarations show Defendant made efforts to meet and confer with Plaintiff that have not succeeded.

SEPARATE STATEMENT REQUIREMENT

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (CRC, Rule 3.1345(a).) Defendant filed a separate statement containing the request’s text, response, and reasons to compel a further response. This is compliant.

INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to the Seventh Amended General Order re: Personal Injury Court Procedures, “[p]arties must participate in an IDC before a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery will be heard, unless the moving party submits evidence, by way of declaration, that the opposing party has failed or refused to participate in an IDC.” (Seventh Amended General Order, ¶ 13 [emphasis in original].) Defendant filed a declaration indicating that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to a request to schedule an IDC, and accordingly, the Court will excuse the IDC requirement with regard to this motion.

//

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

C.C.P. § 2030.300 states, in relevant part: “On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

Discussion

Form Interrogatories

Defendant moves to compel further responses to 34 form interrogatories. Defendant’s motion states 35, but the interrogatories listed in the motion and separate statement sum to 34. (Mtn. pg. 4:1.) The 33 interrogatories are numbers: 2.6, 2.7, 4.1(e), 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 7.1–7.3, 8.1–8.8, 10.1, 11.1, 11.2, 14.1, 14.2, 20.1–20.11 Plaintiff’s response to 33 of the 34 interrogatories was either “Plaintiff will provide,” or “Discovery and investigation continues,” or a combination of these phrases.

These responses are inadequate, incomplete, and evasive under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), subsection (3). Plaintiff’s time to provide was in its responses. The motion to compel is granted as to these 33 form interrogatories.

Defendant also moves to compel further responses to the following form interrogatory:

No. 2.8 asks, “Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state: (a) the city and state where you were convicted; (b) the date of conviction; (c) the offense; and (d) the court and case number.

Plaintiff objected under the belief that the interrogatory sought information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Sep. Statement p. 3.) Evidence Code section 788 expressly allows felony convictions to attack the credibility of witnesses. Plaintiff’s response is without merit. The order to compel further is granted as to form interrogatory 2.8.

//

Sanctions

Plaintiff did not oppose this motion. Therefore, the Court is not mandated to impose sanctions upon granting this motion to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d).) Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant’s Judicial Council Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2018

____________________________

Christopher Lui
Judge of the Superior Court