- Motion for Further Responses to Form Interrogatories
- Motion to Compel Answers to Form Special Interrogatories
- Motion to Compel Production
Moving Party: Plaintiff Sushi Bear, Inc.
Responding Party: Defendant June Jinoh Lee
Ruling Motion 1) Plaintiff Sushi Bear, Inc.’s Motion for Further Response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is moot, except for sanctions.
Defendant’s initial response did not respond to the sub-parts of Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. On 8/17/20, Defendant responded adequately with supplemental responses.
Ruling Motion 2) Plaintiff Sushi Bear, Inc.’s Motion for Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Within fifteen (15) days, Defendant June Jinoh Lee shall respond without objection to Special Interrogatories Nos 1 and 2. The Motion is denied as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 34 and 35.
Special Interrogatories Nos. 2 & 3 requested the facts upon which Defendant contended that Plaintiff could not state a cause of action and the documents that support this contention.
Defendant objected on the grounds that the Special Interrogatories called for a legal conclusion. This objection is incorrect. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010 (b) requires that “An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”
Special Interrogatory No. 29 asked for a contention to which Defendant responded “No.” This response was adequate. For No. 30, Plaintiff requested facts. The response was “N.A.,” because the contention was not being made to the preceding interrogatory. This response is adequate. For No. 31, the request was for documents related to No. 29. The response “N.A.” was adequate. For No. 32, the request was for witnesses related to No. 29. The response “N.A.” was adequate.
For Nos. 34 & 35, Defendant fully responded to the facts why a contention was being made.
Ruling Motion 3) Plaintiff Sushi Bear, Inc.’s Motion for Further Responses to Request for Production is GRANTED. Within fifteen (15) days, Defendant June Jinoh Lee shall respond without objection and produce documents to Request for Production Nos. 1 to 13.
Defendant failed to respond in a straightforward manner. The responses were “as an individual” she was unable to comply. A diligent search was made, but not “as a president of the company.” Defendant failed to follow Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230 when there is any inability to comply.
Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230 requires that “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”
Total Sanctions: Within fifteen (15) days, Defendant June Jinoh Lee shall sanctions in the sum of $1,950.00 ($325.00 per hour x 6 hours). This sum applies cumulatively to the three motions. Plaintiff’s requested sanctions totaling $10,690 was excessive. Plaintiff achieved mixed results on these motions. Defendant’s requests for sanctions are denied.