Case Number: BC629440 Hearing Date: June 28, 2018 Dept: 5
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5
Mirna Diaz Solorzano,
Plaintiff,
v.
Vallarta Supermarkets, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: BC629440
Hearing Date: June 28, 2018
[Tentative] order RE:
Plaintiff’s Motion to compel further responses from Defendant to the Form Interrogatories
BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2018, Plaintiff Mirna Diaz Solorzano (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion to compel Defendant Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) further responses to the Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one. Initially, Plaintiff requested that Defendant provide further responses to FROG Nos. 12.4 and 15.1. On April 10, 2018, Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to a Request for Production of Documents. An Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was held on April 30, 2018. The parties came to a resolution of the discovery disputes, and Defendant provided further responses. However, upon receipt of the further responses, Plaintiff found that Defendant’s further responses were still deficient as to FROG 15.1, and thus, the parties filed a joint statement apprising the Court of the issues still in controversy. Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendant to provide further responses to FROG 15.1.
DISCUSSION
FROG 15.1 requests that the responding party identify the facts, witnesses, and documents that support each affirmative defense or denial of material allegation. In Defendant’s Second Further Response, Defendant provides separate answers as to each of the seven affirmative defenses (responses 1 through 7) and as to each of the eight denials of material allegation (responses 8 through 15).
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Second Further Responses still do not adequately provide answers to each subpart of 15.1. Plaintiff contends that Defendant has still answered most of the question with objections. Defendant argues that it has provided exact breakouts of the information requested under each question and that it has provided sufficient answers.
The Court finds that some further answers must be compelled but some need not. Defendant does not answer the interrogatories with only objections, as Plaintiff contends. After each objection, Defendant follows up with language such as “Without waiving or otherwise limiting the foregoing objection, defendant identifies the following …” (Joint Stmt., at pg. 8.) The Court has not found a single interrogatory which Defendant refused to answer due to an objection in the Second Further Responses. In addition, Plaintiff has not pointed out any specific subsections of the response that were not properly answered.
However, the Court finds that Defendant’s responses to items 3 (relating to the 3rd affirmative defense), 6 (relating to the 6th affirmative defense), 7 (relating to the 7th affirmative defense), 11 (relating to general denial of failure to install a nonslip surface), 13 (relating to general denial of Plaintiff’s injuries proximately caused by Defendant’s acts and omissions), and 14 (relating to general denial of necessity of medical services proximately resulting from Defendant’s acts and omissions) to be insufficient. For each of these items, Defendant responds with language such as “After a good faith effort and reasonable inquiry, responding party lacks sufficient knowledge to respond to this interrogatory. Discovery and Investigation are continuing and defendant reserves the right to amend this response should additional information become available in the future.” (Joint Stmt., at pg. 7.)
The Court of Appeal, Second District, stated in Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782:
Verification of the answers is in effect a declaration that the party has disclosed all information which is available to him. If only partial answers can be supplied, the answers should reveal all information then available to the party. If a person cannot furnish details, he should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. He cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.
(Emphasis added.) Here, Defendant’s conclusory statement in responses to items 3, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 that reasonable and good faith efforts have been made to obtain the information is not sufficient. Defendant must describe the efforts it has made to secure the information. The propounding party and the Court cannot determine whether Defendant’s efforts were reasonable or in good faith if Defendant does not identify what steps it has undertaken. Therefore, Defendant must provide further responses to FROG 15.1 items 3, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14. If Defendant does not have any facts, witnesses, or documents to support an affirmative defense or general denial, it must so plainly state. If Defendant is unable to supply details or information as to certain items, then it must set forth the efforts it has undertaken to obtain the missing information.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to FROG 15.1 is granted only as to items 3, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 and otherwise denied. Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code compliant responses to items 3, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of FROG 15.1, without objection, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.
SANCTIONS
Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. and its counsel Gene S. Stone. The Court finds Defendant’s failure to provide complete answers to written discovery a misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.010(d).) Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Defendant and its counsel. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $860.00, representing 2 hours for drafting the motion and for appearance at the hearing, at $400.00 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee. Defendant Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. and its counsel Gene S. Stone, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel, in the amount of $860.00 within thirty (30) days of this order.
Conclusion and Order
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to FROG 15.1 is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses only as to items 3, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14. As to other responses, the motion is denied. Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code compliant responses to items 3, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of FROG 15.1, without objection, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. and its counsel Gene S. Stone, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel, in the amount of $860.00 within thirty (30) days of this order.
All parties should note that the hearing on this motion and all future court dates will take
//
//
//
//
//
place at the Court’s new location: Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order, including the Court’s new location and new department number, and file proof of service of such.
DATED: June 28, 2018 ___________________________
Elaine Lu
Judge of the Superior Court