D.C. Carpet & Restoration Services, Inc. v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company AKA Travelers Insurance, et al.
30-2016-00836319
Plaintiff D.C. Carpet & Restoration Services, Inc.?s Motion for Protective Order is granted in part and denied in part.
The discovery at issue includes 162 special interrogatories propounded by Defendant Gary Ochse. Ochse voluntarily agreed to withdraw 39 of the interrogatories (nos. 16-21, 34-63, 79-81) prior to Plaintiff filing this motion. Of the remaining 123 interrogatories, Plaintiff?s motion is granted as to nos. 82, 83, 84, and 154. These interrogatories concern a request for attorneys? fees that has already been stricken.
The motion is denied as to the remaining 119 interrogatories (nos. 1-15, 22-33, 64-78, 85-153, and 155-162). While numerous, the quantity, alone, does not warrant a finding of ?undue? burden. The benefits likely to be obtained if the interrogatories are answered are not clearly outweighed by Plaintiff?s inconvenience and expense in responding. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ? 8:1008.1, citing Code Civ. Proc., ?? 2019.030, 2030.090; W. Pico Furniture Co. of L.A. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 418.)
Plaintiff alleges that Ochse should be personally liable for an alleged oral agreement to pay for remediation services. Ochse disputes that any communications between him and Plaintiff, (as distinguished from his insurance company and Plaintiff), gave rise to a contract. His interrogatories seeking information to defend against an implied-in-fact contract are not unnecessary or improper.
Furthermore, approximately 60 of the interrogatories, consist of follow-up questions, concerning several witnesses (Plaintiff?s employees and subcontractors), raised by Plaintiff?s prior discovery responses. Plaintiff mischaracterizes these interrogatories as merely requests for contact information.? Plaintiff also contends that they are duplicative of prior discovery Plaintiff has already answered. However, the prior discovery responses attached to Plaintiff?s papers do not contain the information sought by this discovery.
The remaining interrogatories are not in dispute and Plaintiff has not objected to them as being either unnecessary or duplicative.
No sanctions are awarded.
Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.