2016-00190573-CU-PA

Amy Queral vs. Eric Wolfe

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Black, Travis G.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is granted. The Motion for Sanctions is denied.

This Motion arises out of an auto collision between Plaintiff and Defendant. Defendant apparently has admitted liability and the only issue remaining for discovery is damages.

Following the filing of this case, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Black, has served no less than 11 sets of written discovery, which comprises 212 interrogatories, 14 requests for production of documents, and 21 requests for admissions. The special interrogatories at the heart of this motion (67 interrogatories) were served on October 19, 2016. Exactly one year later on October 19, 2017, Mr. Black discovered that Defendant never served responses to the special interrogatories. Mr. Black contacted defense counsel Chris Patton to inquire regarding the responses. Via email, Mr. Patton responded that Defendant would be providing no further responses to the discovery requests due to the “100’s of nonsense requests [plaintiff] ha[d] made to date.” (Pl. Exh. 6.) Mr. Patton further stated that he “look[ed] forward to [plaintiff’s] motion and hearing [Mr. Black] try to explain … how these [requests] are necessary and reasonably tailored.” (Id.)

In general, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP

§ 2017.010.) “Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. ‘[I]t is a “central precept” of the Civil Discovery Act . . . that discovery “be essentially self-executing.” ‘ ” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402, quoting Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.) Thus, “the trial court does not usually consider either the propriety of a party’s discovery demand or the adequacy of a party’s response unless a dispute arises.” (Id.) When a dispute arises over the production of documents, the trial court may intervene in the discovery process if the responding party files a motion for a protective order, or if the propounding party files a motion to compel because the responding party failed to serve timely or adequate responses. (

Id.)

The Court does empathize with defendant’s concerns. Certainly, it can be perceived that Plaintiff’s discovery tactics border on harassment and, it must be stated, the Court sees little utility or purpose in many of the interrogatories and requests. That said, absent a request for a protective order, the Court has no authority to condition the service of interrogatories on a showing of “good cause”. (See Sinaiko, supra, at 402 [trial courts lack discretion to augment limitations on discovery established by the Legislature].) Indeed, “[t]he Legislature was aware that establishing a broad right to discovery might permit parties lacking any valid cause of action to engage in ‘fishing expedition[s],’ to a defendant’s inevitable annoyance. It granted such a right anyway, comfortable in the conclusion that

‘[m]utual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551.) Indeed, a request for discovery is not subject to the objection that the proponent is engaged in a “fishing expedition.” In our discovery statutes the Legislature has authorized “fishing expeditions” and thus “the claim that a party is engaged upon a fishing expedition is not, and under no circumstances can be, a valid objection to an otherwise proper attempt to utilize the provisions of the discovery statutes.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 385-386.)

In this factual instance, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 explicitly provides Plaintiff with the right, subject to no time limitation, to compel a responding party to provide responses. There is no dispute that no responses were ever served. If Mr. Patton believed that Plaintiff’s latest round of discovery requests were burdensome, oppressive, entirely irrelevant, or harassing, then he could have filed a motion for a protective order, but he did not. Alternatively, Mr. Patton could have simply served objections and the Court could then have possibly considered the matter under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300. Unfortunately, Defendant availed himself of neither option, choosing instead simply to not respond to the pending interrogatories. As much as the Court understands defense counsel’s frustration, wholly failing to respond to the interrogatories violated the Discovery Act. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to provide responses, without objections (see Sinaiko, supra, at 403-404), to the Special Interrogatories.

While the Court orders Defendant to provide responses to the Special Interrogatories, the Court declines to award sanctions. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s counsel is not without fault in this matter and, while civil discovery is intended to be self-executing, that process is clearly compromised when the propounding party serves hundreds of discovery requests where not clearly warranted and then seeks the Court’s intervention over a year after the fact. Such circumstances support the Court’s exercise of discretion to deny sanctions. (See CCP § 2030.290(c) [a monetary sanction shall be imposed unless the Court finds “circumstances [that] make the imposition of sanctions unjust”].)

Defendant shall serve responses without objections on or before January 26, 2018.