CONNIE LACH VS GEORGE HANNA, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC14268    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2031.300, 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Silvija Wolf’s Motions to Compel Plaintiffs’ Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents are GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

This action arose from a car accident involving Plaintiffs Tin Nguyen (“Nguyen”) and Tiffany Le (“Le”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Silvija Wolf (“Defendant”). On January 8, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”) on Plaintiffs. (Motions, Lindner Decls. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs responded to those discovery requests on March 14, 2019 with only objections. Defendant’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel, but Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that he had lost contact with his clients and provided an extension to file motions to compel further discovery responses by July 29, 2019. (Id., Lindner Decls. ¶¶ 7-8, citing to Exhs. D-E.)

Defendant then filed the instant Motions to Compel Plaintiffs’ Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on July 7, 2019 before the discovery deadline set by CCP § 2030.300(c). The Court also finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet-and-confer requirement of CCP § 2030.300(b) and submitted separate statements as required by CRC 3.1345(a). Plaintiffs, however, have not opposed the Motions.

II. Discussion

A. Form Interrogatories

“The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. [Citations.]” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

Defendant asks the Court to compel Nguyen to further respond to FROG Nos. 102.1, 102.2, 102.3, 102.4, 102.5, 102.8, 104.1, 106.1, 106.2, 106.3, 106.5, 106.7, 106.8, 107.1, 108.1, 108.2, 110.1, 110.2, 111.1, 120.1, 120.3, and 120.4. (Notice of Motion to Further Compel Nguyen’s Responses to FROG p. 2.) Defendant also asks for an order compelling Le to further respond to the same FROG as Nguyen, plus FROG Nos. 112.2, 112.4, 112.5, 114.1, and 120.2. (Notice of Motion to Further Compel Le’s Responses to FROG p. 2.)

Having reviewed the Plaintiffs’ discovery responses to the FROG, the Court agrees with Defendant that the responses consist exclusively of boilerplate objections—there are no substantive responses of any sort. For this reason, the responses are incomplete and invasive within the meaning of CCP § 2030.300(a)(1).

Moreover, “[w]hile the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory. [Citation.]” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541, emphasis added.) Here, Plaintiffs fail to oppose the Motions to justify their objections. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must be compelled to further respond to the FROG.

B. Requests for Production of Documents

Defendant further asks for an order compelling Nguyen to further respond to RFP Nos. 1-5 and Le to further respond to RFP Nos. 1-6. (Notice of Motion to Further Compel Nguyen’s Responses to FROG p. 2.) Like their responses to the FROG, Plaintiffs’ responses to the RFP also contain exclusively objections without any production of documents.

A motion to compel further responses to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (CCP §2031.310(b)(1).) Here, the RFP asks for documents concerning Plaintiffs’ economic damages, the car accident, and Plaintiffs’ medical records of personal injuries. The Court finds that there is good cause for Defendant to request the documents as they are relevant to the merits of this action.

“Once good cause was shown, the burden shifted to [responding party] to justify his objection. [Citation.]” (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Plaintiffs, however, fail to oppose the Motions to justify their objections. Accordingly, , Plaintiffs must be compelled to further respond to the RFP.

D. Monetary Sanctions

Given the foregoing, monetary sanctions are mandatory under CCP § 2030.300(d) and § 2031.310(h). The Court finds $1,396.60 in attorney fees and costs to be reasonable and awards such amount against Plaintiffs only, each shall pay half of the amount.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the reasons stated, the Motions are GRANTED.