Case Number: BC683711 Hearing Date: November 21, 2018 Dept: O

Defendant City of Azusa’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses within 10 days.

Defendant City of Azusa’s motion to compel further responses to requests for admission and form interrogatory 17.1 regarding non-admitted requests is DENIED as to Group A, and GRANTED as to Group B. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses to Group B responses within 10 days.

Timeliness

Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.300(c).)

Plaintiff contends the motions are untimely because the parties extended the time “to file” the motions to 10/19/18. (See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant City of Azusa’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“Opposition”), at 2.) Defendant City of Azusa’s (“Plaintiff”) motions to compel were not filed until November 2, 2019.

The Court finds, however, that the motions are timely. The parties extended the due date “for serving any motions with respect to the requests for admission, form interrogatories, special interrogatories” to October 19, 2018. (See City of Azusa’s Notice if Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Exhibit G.) Here, the proofs of service show that the motions were properly served on October 19, 2018, which was the agreed upon date for service.

Plaintiff also contends that the motions are untimely because they were not filed within 16 days of the hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005(b). However, defendant obtained leave of court to advance the hearing dates for both motions on November 7, 2018.

Based on the foregoing, the motions are timely.

Procedural Defects

Plaintiff contends the motions do not comply with CRC 3.1345(c) because the separate statements require the reader to “continually skip between pages to find out what Defendant is arguing.” (See Opposition, at 5.) A review of defendant’s separate statement shows that each interrogatory requests and plaintiff’s full responses is included. The only sections that referenced preceding sections were the “arguments” section, which were identical to arguments made in previous sections, and acceptable to this Court for efficiency reasons. As such, the court finds that defendant’s separate statement is compliant with California Rule of Court 3.1345.

Merits

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories and document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2030.300(b).)

Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(a),(b).) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (CCP § 2030.220(c).)

Special interrogatories 1-2

Special interrogatories 1-2 seek the identity of the owners of “the property where Adrian drowned” and the “dam spillway.”

Plaintiff does not identify the owners of these specific properties. Instead, she claims that all defendant entities own the properties. Such is not a “complete and straightforward” answer. If the plaintiff does not know who owns it, she must “so state.” (CCP § 2030.220(c).)

Special Interrogatories 3, 7-11, 13, 15, 18-20, and 25

Plaintiff objected on the basis that the questions were vague, overbroad, and burdensome. Courts generally do not sustain this kind of objection unless the question is totally unintelligible. The answering party owes a duty to respond in good faith as best he or she can. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.3d 771, 783.) It is not enough that the questions will require a lot of work to answer. It must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust that it amounts to oppression. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 295, 299.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a court should “weigh the relative importance of the information sought against the hardship which its production may entail.” (See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.2d 12, 19, citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-84 (superseded by statute on other grounds).)

Here, the questions are simple and straightforward and not at all overbroad, vague, or burdensome. Further, plaintiff’s responses include the phrase, “including, but not limited to” and “documents including but not necessarily limited to.” During the meet and confer process, plaintiff explained that this phrase was necessary because later discovered facts may support the contentions. However, the responses do not distinguish between plaintiff’s known facts and other facts presently unknown to plaintiff that may exist. Instead, it refers to a set of facts “including, but not limited to,” which implies that there are additional facts and that the answer is not complete.

Special Interrogatories 22-23

Special Interrogatories 22-23 ask for documents in support of plaintiff’s contention that the City of Azusa either “owned” or “controlled” the pond. Plaintiff’s responses are evasive and incomplete. Plaintiff does not provide any documents in support of her contentions, and further, plaintiff identifies ownership/control of the “parking lot” and “bike trails,” but does not address “the pond.” If Plaintiff has no supporting facts or documents, then she must so state.

Accordingly, motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses within 10 days.

Form Interrogatory 17.1: Requests for Admission 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 15, 21 (Group A)

If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP 2033.220(c).)

Here, plaintiff responded that she “made a reasonable inquiry and lacks … knowledge to admit or deny the request.” The Court finds the response is adequate. Defendant contends that plaintiff should have stated that she lacked the information “and” knowledge to admit or deny the request. However, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220(c) does not require so. It is stated in the alternative with the “or” conjunction.

Form Interrogatory 17.1: Requests for Admission 2-4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16-20, 23-29 (Group B)

As she did with the Special Interrogatories, plaintiff objected on the basis that the questions are vague, overbroad, and burdensome. Again, here the questions are simple and straightforward and not at all overbroad, vague, or burdensome. Further, plaintiff’s responses include the phrase, “including, but not limited to” and “documents including but not necessarily limited to.” During the meet and confer process, plaintiff again explained that this phrase was necessary because later discovered facts may support the contentions. However, the Court finds again the responses do not distinguish between plaintiff’s known facts and other facts presently unknown to Plaintiff that may exist.

Accordingly, motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories 17.1 is DENIED as to Group A, and GRANTED as to Group B. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses to Group B responses within 10 days.