Case Name: Law Firm of Patricia A. Boyes et al vs Leticia Carrejo
Case No.: 17CV316679

Counsel is ordered never to attach to a declaration multiple discovery requests in a single exhibit. It makes it very difficult to search for and find specific discovery requests. Similarly, separate sets of discovery requests shall never be incorporated into a single separate statement when filing a motion to compel further responses.

1) Motion to deem requests for admissions admitted:

Plaintiff Law Firm of Patricia A. Boyes filed a motion against Defendant Leticia Carrejo for an order to deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted, and for monetary sanctions. The motion was timely served, is unopposed and is GRANTED.

As to sanctions, the Court does not award sanctions for time spent and expenses not yet incurred. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a); Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.) Accordingly, the time claimed for review of opposition, preparation of reply and to appear at the hearing are DENIED. Counsel’s hourly rate and the amount of time spent to prepare the moving papers are otherwise reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will award one-half the amount of attorney fees sought, or the sum of $450 plus $60 in costs, for a total award of $510, to be paid within 20 days after notice of entry of the order signed by the Court. The Court notes that the caption on the order for this motion incorrectly states that it is the motion to compel, and shall be corrected by the Plaintiff.

2) Motion to compel responses to discovery requests:

Plaintiff Law Firm filed a motion against Defendant Leticia Carrejo for an order to compel responses to the Request for Admissions, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for production of Documents, Set One. The motion was timely served and is unopposed.

However, the motion to compel responses to the Request for Admissions, Set One is DENIED. The Court has deemed the requests to be admitted, and the Court finds this duplicate motion to compel to be unnecessary.

Similarly, the motion to compel a responses to Form Interrogatory no. 17.1 is DENIED, as all of the Requests for Admissions are now admitted in light of the ruling above.

As to the motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, general Form Interrogatories are designed to be used with personal injury actions. The Court finds that the Form Interrogatories that ask about a drivers’ license, disabilities, use of medications or alcohol, or to identify someone who witnessed the “incident” are inherently ambiguous, not relevant to the subject matter of this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The motion to compel such form interrogatories is DENIED

Moreover, “Incident” based Form Interrogatories in a case alleging a breach of contract with an attorney, where the Defendant claims the attorney acted inappropriately, are inherently ambiguous. The Court finds that the use of “Incident” Form Interrogatories are not appropriate in the context of this case. (See California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial, §8:933.8, “Objections to certain Official Form Interrogatories are likely to be sustained in cases involving complex business transactions.” [Emphasis in original.])”

Accordingly, the motion to compel as to any Form Interrogatory that uses the term “Incident” is DENIED. The only Form Interrogatories to which Plaintiff will be ordered to respond are those in the 50.1 series, and those in the 1.0 and 2.0 series that do NOT use the term “Incident.” Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a revised order that clearly lists each Form Interrogatory that is compelled. As to those Form Interrogatories, Defendant shall be ordered to provide full and complete code-compliant responses to the identified Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within 20 days after Plaintiff has served written notice of an order signed by the Court (a notice of ruling is not sufficient to require a response).

Plaintiff’s motion to compel written responses to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED, except that nothing in the Code requires a party to “identify” the responsive documents in a written response as stated in the Request at paragraph 1, and that portion of the request is DENIED. Defendant shall be ordered to provide full and complete code-compliant written responses to the Request for Production of Documents without objections, within 20 days after Plaintiff has served written notice of an order signed by the Court.
The motion to compel production of documents is DENIED without prejudice as premature, as a motion to compel documents is proper only to compel production of documents in accordance with a statement of compliance in a written response. (See CCP 2031.320.)

As to sanctions, the Court does not award sanctions for time spent and expenses not yet incurred. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a); Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.) Accordingly, the time claimed for review of opposition, preparation of reply and to appear at the hearing are DENIED. Moreover, the motion as only partially successful. Accordingly, the Court will award one hour for preparation of the motion plus costs, for the amount of $300 plus $60 in costs, for a total award of $360, to be paid within 20 days after notice of entry of the order signed by the Court.

Moving party shall prepare an amended order on the motion to compel multiple discovery requests that repeats the language of the tentative ruling, and that clearly specifies what discovery requests Defendant will be required to respond to.

–