Case Number: 17K03510 Hearing Date: January 17, 2018 Dept: 77

Plaintiff Casa Bonita Hospital, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant California Department of Public Health is ordered to serve further responses to the special interrogatories at issue within 20 days. The Court declines to impose sanctions on Plaintiff and its counsel as requested by Defendant.

Legal Standard

CCP section 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . . “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a).) Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (CCP § 2030.300(c).)

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (CRC Rule 3.1345(a).)

Here, Plaintiff’s motion is timely made based on the extensions regarding supplemental responses and the motion to compel as granted by the parties. (Willis Decl., Ex. J).

Background

Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendant on July 11, 2017. Responses were served on August 15, 2017. Following extensive but unsuccessful meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff filed the instant motion on November 21, 2017.

Discussion

Late Opposition

As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses the opposition. Defendant timely filed the opposition on January 3, 2018, but it appears to have served the opposition by regular mail, a method of service not calculated to reach the other party the next business day. As Plaintiff states in its reply, it did not receive the opposition in a timely manner and only had one day to draft its reply rather than five. While Defendant did not timely serve its opposition, it appears that Plaintiff was still able to reply on the merits of the opposition and does not appear to have been materially prejudiced in its ability to respond and timely file the reply. Accordingly, the Court will consider the opposition.

Requests in Dispute

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories 2 through 18.

Special Interrogatories 2 through 18 ask Defendant to identify or state relevant witnesses, persons, conversations, and facts relevant to the citation and investigation. Defendant raised various objections to these interrogatories on the bases of overbreadth, deliberative process privilege, official information privilege, attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, premature identification of witnesses and expert witnesses, and third-party privacy, but ultimately responded to each: “Answering this interrogatory would necessitate the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from defendant’s documents, and the burden and expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for plaintiff as for defendant. Thus, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, subdivision (a)(2) and 2030.230, defendant refers plaintiff to the documents produced by defendant in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.”

CCP § 2030.210(a)(2) permits a party responding to interrogatories to produce writings. CCP § 2030.230 provides in part that when the response would require a compilation or audit of the documents to which the propounding party is directed, responding party may sufficiently answer by specifying the writings from which the answer may be ascertained.

Here, Defendant exercised its ability under CCP § 2030.210(a)(2) to respond with reference to documents. However, Defendant’s responses are deficient. The responses do not comply with CCP § 2030.230 because Defendant does not adequately give “sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify…the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” Rather, Defendant merely refers to the entire body of documents without any indication as to which documents Plaintiff should refer to for the answers. Additionally, the documents referred to had not been produced because of the Plaintiff’s refused to stipulate to a protective order regarding disclosure of information contained in the referenced documents.

By withholding information and not specifying the documents containing the information, Plaintiff has not complied with CCP § 2030.220, requiring a party to responding in as complete and straightforward a manner as possible. Because Defendant did not sufficiently specify where Plaintiff could find the answers to the interrogatories in the documents Defendant produced as required by CCP § 2030.230 and because Defendant withheld responsive information on the basis of privacy when Plaintiff’s interrogatories did not demand such private information, further responses to these interrogatories should be granted.

Sanctions

Defendant requests $5,915.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel in connection with this motion. While sanctions are available when a motion to compel is unsuccessfully made, absent a finding of substantial justification or other circumstances, here, not only was Plaintiff’s motion successful, the circumstances indicate that this motion was necessary for Plaintiff to receive adequate responses to its interrogatories. CCP § 2030.290(c). Accordingly, the Court declines to impose sanctions on Plaintiff and its counsel.

Moving party to give notice.

The court notes that hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Set One is set for January 18, 2018. The court is prepared to hear both motions on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 77.