MOTION #2?MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
On 7/14/16, Defendants served Special Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff Mark Harvey.? The special interrogatories included, among other interrogatories, 249 contention interrogatories seeking identification of facts, witnesses and documents supporting the contentions of Plaintiffs? First Amended Complaint (?FAC?) (the operative pleading at the time).? Each of the contention interrogatories quotes specific language and identifies where that language can be found in the FAC.? Neither party identifies the method of service or attaches the original interrogatories, so it is impossible to calculate the exact response date but responses were due sometime between 8/15 and 8/18/16, depending upon the method of service. ?On 8/11/16, Plaintiff Mark Harvey requested and was granted a 32-day extension of time in which to respond to the special interrogatories.? By the time the responses were due, Plaintiffs had, pursuant to stipulation, filed a Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff?s responded to each of the 249 contention interrogatories with the following statement:
HARVEY objects to this special interrogatory on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. More specifically, this special interrogatory seeks information related to HARVEY’s First Amended Complaint. On or about August 16, 2016, HARVEY filed a Second Amended Complaint. An amended pleading supersedes the original. [State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Sup.Ct. (Onvoi Business Solutions, Inc.) (2010) 184 CA4th 1124, 1130-1131, 109 CR3d 88, 92.]
This motion followed.
Before addressing the merits of the motion, the Court will address the procedural complaints each side makes about the other.? Defendants allege that Plaintiff did not timely serve the discovery responses because they were due on 9/19/16 but did not arrive in Defendants? counsel?s offices until 9/21/16 and the tracking number associated with the responses showed that they did not arrive in the post office until 9/20/16.? Pursuant to CCP ? 1013, service by mail is complete at the time the document is ?deposited in a post office, mailbox, subpost office, substation, or mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the [USPS].?? Plaintiff?s proof of service shows that the responses were timely mailed and they arrived within two days.? The responses are not untimely and objections were not waived.
Plaintiff argues that the motion is untimely because it was personally served on 9/30/16?only 15 court days before the hearing.? (Presumably, Defendants neglected to consider the 10/10/16 court holiday).? In violation of CRC, Defendants failed to file a proof of service for the motion, so the Court must rely on Plaintiff?s assertion of the date of service.? Plaintiff asks that the motion be denied as untimely, however, he was able to prepare and file a substantive opposition so the Court will consider the motion.
Plaintiff also complains that Defendants did not engage in ?a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion? because Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff?s last ?meet and confer? letter.? As the parties had exchanged a series of letters on the issue and the 9/28/16 letter does not raise any new substantive issues, there is no failure to meet and confer.? A party cannot extend the meet and confer process beyond its natural conclusion by reiterating its original point of view.
Finally, although neither party suggests that this motion is moot, it appears that Plaintiff served ?supplemental? responses to the special interrogatories on 9/30/16 (the day the motion was filed).? Those responses are identical to the initial responses with the addition of the following paragraph:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, HARVEY responds as follows:? [?] Pursuant to a Stipulation between the parties, HARVEY filed an unverified Second Amended Complaint on August 16, 2016.? Accordingly, HARVEY?s unverified First Amended Complaint was superseded and no longer has any effect as a pleading.? All of HARVEY?s claims and the allegations therein, emanate from HARVEY?s unverified Second Amended Complaint.? Therefore, HARVEY is unable to respond to this special interrogatory.?
The issues raised by the supplemental responses are identical to those raised by this motion.? Accordingly, the Court finds that the motion is not moot and addresses the merits of the motion.
Answers to interrogatories shall be ?as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.?? CCP ? 2030.220(a).? If an interrogatory ?cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.?? CCP ? 2030.220(b).? If a party does not have sufficient knowledge to respond fully they may say so but the party ?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).?? If only part of an interrogatory is objectionable, ?the remainder of the interrogatory shall be answered.?? CCP ? 2030.240(a).
Plaintiff?s answers to the contention interrogatories were not ?complete? or ?straightforward.? ?Although the first amended complaint is no longer the relevant pleading, the allegations addressed by the contention interrogatories appear in the second amended complaint and the facts, witnesses and documents relating to those contentions remain relevant.? Defendants? motion to compel further responses is GRANTED.? Plaintiff has 10 days in which to provide full and complete responses in compliance with CCP ? 2030.210 et seq.
Each side seeks sanctions from the other.? Defendants seek monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs, the individual attorneys and the firm in the amount of $3,671.51.? Plaintiffs seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant Joseph B. Sobek and his counsel in the amount of $2,800.
Plaintiff?s responses did not comply with the statutory requirements.? Further, ?the record here strongly indicates that the purpose of plaintiffs’ objections was to delay discovery, to require defendants to incur potentially significant costs in redrafting interrogatories that were clear . . . ., and to generally obstruct the self-executing process of discovery. That plaintiffs seized upon an arguable deficiency in the interrogatories based on slim authority, does not provide ?substantial justification? for their objections.???Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1292.? Accordingly, Defendants? request for monetary sanctions isGRANTED.? The Court finds that monetary sanctions in the amount of $1.871.51 (six hours at $300 per hour plus a filing fee of $71.51) are appropriate and orders Plaintiff and his attorneys to pay Defendants that amount (total) within fourteen days.? Plaintiff?s request for sanctions is DENIED.