Discovery Motion to Compel Further Responses (Judge William Stewart)


Case Number: BC581489??? Hearing Date: April 29, 2016??? Dept: A

Dieckman v Staebler

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (4)

Calendar: 21
Case No: BC581489
Date: 4/29/16

MP: Defendants, Ronald Staebler and Jacqueline Staebler
RP: Plaintiffs, Earl Dieckman and Sirarpie Diratsouian

RELIEF REQUESTED:
1. Order compelling Plaintiffs, Earl Drieckman and Sirarpie Diratsouian, to serve further responses to the Defendants? form interrogatories; order imposing monetary sanctions of $1,820.
2. Order compelling Plaintiff, Sirarpie Diratsouian, to serve further responses to the Defendants? requests for production; order imposing monetary sanctions of $1,820.
3. Order compelling Plaintiff, Earl Drieckman, to serve further responses to the Defendants? requests for admission; order imposing monetary sanctions of $1,820.
4. Order compelling Plaintiff, Sirarpie Diratsouian, to serve further responses to the Defendants? requests for admission; order imposing monetary sanctions of $1,820.

CHRONOLOGY:
Discovery Served: November 3, 2015
Responses Served: December 4, 2015

Motions Served: March 24, 2016 (Timely based on prior filing)

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiffs? claim that they suffered personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by the Defendants? negligence.

The Defendants have filed four motions to seek further responses to their form interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admissions when the responses contain unmerited objections. The Defendants seeks relief under CCP sections 2030.300, 2031.310, and 2033.290.

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories
The Defendants seek a further response to form interrogatory 17.1, which seeks information on responses to requests for admission. The interrogatory has four subparts. The fourth subpart requests the responding party to identify all documents that support the request. The Plaintiffs served a response in which they cited to CCP section 2030.230 and stated that the documents may be examined at the law offices of Plaintiffs? counsel. However, section 2030.230 requires the responding party to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. Section 2030.230 requires this specification to be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents. The Plaintiffs? response does not specify the documents at all.
Accordingly, the Court will order the Plaintiffs to serve a further response to form interrogatory 17.1 that specifies the documents.

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production
The Defendants seek further responses to requests for production 1 to 11. Under CCP section 2031.310, the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document described in the request for production or deposition notice. In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations. Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224 (rejecting facts supporting the production of documents that were in a separate statement because the document was not verified and did not constitute evidence). In Calcor, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling the defendant to produce records because the plaintiff had failed to provide specific facts showing good cause for their production.
The same issue exists here. The declaration of the Defendants? attorney, Jonathan Ross, does not include any specific facts showing good cause for the inspection of the documents sought in the requests for production. Mr. Ross does not discuss the requests for production or explain, with specific facts, the need for the documents sought in each request for production. As noted above, the Court of Appeal in Calcor has found that the specific facts must be in a declaration and not in other documents.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the Defendants? motion to compel further responses to the requests for production.

3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission (Earl Dieckman)
The Defendants seek further responses to requests for admission 4, 5, and 6 from the Plaintiff, Earl Dieckman. The Plaintiff served a response that includes the objection that the requests for admission are unclear, misleading, ambiguous, and confusing. Since the Defendants have filed a motion to compel further responses, the Plaintiff has the burden to justify each of their objections. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. Under CCP section 2023.010, making an unmeritorious objection fall within the definition of discovery misuse. The Plaintiff did not file any opposition papers and therefore does not meet this burden.
Accordingly, the Court will order the Plaintiff, Earl Dieckman, to serve further responses without objections to requests for admission 4, 5, and 6.

4. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission (Sirarpie Diratsouian)
The Defendants seek further responses to requests for admission 1 to 9, 11 to 14, and 17 to 19 with regards to the Plaintiff, Sirarpie Diratsouian. The Plaintiff served a response that includes the objection that the requests for admission are unclear, misleading, ambiguous, and confusing. Since the Defendants have filed a motion to compel further responses, the Plaintiff has the burden to justify each of their objections. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. Under CCP section 2023.010, making an unmeritorious objection fall within the definition of discovery misuse. The Plaintiff did not file any opposition papers and does not meet this burden.
Accordingly, the Court will order the Plaintiff, Sirarpie Diratsouian, to serve further responses without objections to requests for admission 1 to 9, 11 to 14, and 17 to 19.

5. Monetary Sanctions
Finally, the Defendants requests a total of $5,460 in their three motions regarding the interrogatories and requests for admission. Under CCP sections 2030.300 and 2033.290, the Court may impose reasonable monetary sanctions on the Plaintiffs because they misused discovery.
The Defendants? attorney, Jonathan Ross, states that he expects to bill eleven hours at $160 per hour on each motion and that the filing fee is $60. This would be a total of 33 hours to prepare, draft, and appear on these three standard discovery motions. Based on the difficulty of the issues, a more reasonable amount of time to spend on each motion is four hours. Accordingly, the amount of monetary sanctions for each motion is $700 (4 hours at $160 per hour + $60 filing fee).

RULING:
1. Order Plaintiffs, Earl Drieckman and Sirarpie Diratsouian, to serve further responses to the Defendants? form interrogatories
: Impose monetary sanctions in the sum of $700.00.
2. Deny motion to compel Plaintiff, Sirarpie Diratsouian, to serve further responses to the Defendants? requests for production
3. Order Plaintiff, Earl Drieckman, to serve further responses to the Defendants? requests for admission
: Impose monetary sanctions in the sum of $700.00.
4. Order Plaintiff, Sirarpie Diratsouian, to serve further responses to the Defendants? requests for admission
: Impose monetary sanctions in the sum of $700.00.