Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (William A. Crowfoot)

Case Number: 23AHCV01295    Hearing Date: November 18, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

1. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER BILL OF PARTICULARS FROM CROSS-COMPLAINANTS STERLING VET CORP. AND REBECCA SWIMMER

 In responding to a demand for a bill of particulars, the plaintiff must provide a specification of the individual items involved with as much particularity, precision and definiteness as the nature of the case will permit. (Meredith v. Marks (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 265, 270.) “The purpose of [CCP § 454] is to give the adverse party reasonable notice of the items constituting the claim which he is required to meet, so that he may prepare for trial.” (Banchero v. Coffis (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 717, 722.) The bill of particulars is not discovery but a pleading device that limits the scope of proof at trial. (Dobbins v. Hardister (1966) 242 Cal. App. 2d 787, 795.)

RSP argues that the Bill of Particulars provided by Sterling and Swimmer is inadequate because it only identifies categories of “improper change orders”, “defective incomplete work”, “lost income”, and “lost revenue”, additional business expenses”, and “attorney’s fees and litigation costs.” (Motion, pp. 5-6.) RSP argues that Sterling and Swimmer fail to provide any “further breakdown or itemization”, and contend that they are required to identify particular change orders or defective work and explain why they were improper or defective. RSO also argues that Sterling and Swimmer fail to provide any explanation for how their lost income or lost revenue is calculated.

The purpose of a bill of particulars is to provide “reasonable notice” of the items at issue. Here, the bill of particulars is not so evasive or uncertain because it identifies the categories of damages claimed by Sterlin and Swimmer. If RSP wishes to inquire about the reasoning behind Sterling and Swimmer’s claimed damages, RSP may conduct discovery into those particular categories.

The motion to compel a further bill of particulars is DENIED.

1. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

RSP moves to compel a further response to Form Interrogatory (“FROG”) Nos. 4.1, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.6. The Court rules on the motion as follows:

FROG No. 4.1: GRANTED. Sterling and Swimmer’s response to Form Interrogatory No 4.1 is incomplete because there is no response to subparts (d) through (g).

FROG Nos. 8.7, 8.8, 9.1: GRANTED. Sterling and Swimmer claim that they have lost income or damages, therefore, they must have some idea of what that amount is. A further response is required.

FROG No. 9.2: GRANTED. Sterling and Swimmer admit that responsive documents exist but fail to describe them as required by FROG No. 9.2.

FROG Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.6: GRANTED. Sterling and Swimmer’s responses to FROG No. 12.1, 12.6, 50.1, 50.2, and 50.6 are incomplete and the claims of privilege asserted in response to FROG Nos. 12.2, 12.3, and 15.1 are OVERRULED.

RSP’s motion is GRANTED in its entirety. Further verified responses must be served within 20 days of the date of this Order.

Sanctions are imposed against Sterling and Swimmer, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,785, consisting of 3 hours at RSP’s counsel’s hourly rate of $575 and a filing fee of $60, payable within 20 days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice

Dated this 18th day of November 2025