Motion To Compel-Special Interrogatories FINAL

1
RAV REDDY
2 3000 F DANVILLE BLVD #268
ALAMO, CA
3 PLAINTIFF PRO PER
6
Superior Court of the State of California
For the County Contra Costa
7
9 ) Case No. MSC 19-02024

)
10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
RAV REDDY )
FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
)
11 INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY
Plaintiff, )
SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000,
)
12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
vs. )
AUTHORITIES, DECLARATION OFRAV REDDY
)
13 SUB ZERO WOLF INC, ET AL ) DATE: TIME:
) DEPT:
14 Defendants. )
)
15 )
)
16
17
TO: SUB ZERO WOLF INC AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD HEREIN:
18
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ____________, 20__, at _______.m. or as soon thereafter
19
as the matter may be heard, in Department ________ of the above-entitled court, located at
20
21 RAV REDDY will and hereby do move this Court:
22 ///
23 ///
24
1. For an order compelling SUB ZERO to provide written, verified further responses to
25
Special Interrogatories without objections as set forth herein; and
26
27
28
- 1 -
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL-SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1 2. For an order of sanctions as against SUB ZERO, in the amount of $5,000 for the
2 preparation and service of knowing incomplete responses to the Special Interrogatories, which
3
responses contain mostly “boilerplate” objections.
4
This motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2030.300,
5
and is brought by reason of the failure of SUB ZERO, to provide any meaningful response or to
6
7 justify the objections stated therein.
8 This motion is based upon this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities,
9
declaration of MOVING PARTY, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be
10
presented to the Court by MOVING PARTY at the time of the hearing.
11
12
Dated________________ _______________________________________________
13 RAV REDDY, PRO SE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 -
1
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3
I.
4
5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
6
RAV REDDY, MOVING PARTY, (“Moving Party”) hereby submits their memorandum of
7
8 points and authorities in support of this motion seeking an order compelling SUB ZERO INC to
9 provide further responses to Special Interrogatories.

10 This motion should be granted because Moving Party has properly completed a good faith
11
meet and confer effort regarding further responses to the interrogatories. Despite the fact that counsel
12
for Moving Party sent an extensive meet and confer letter to counsel for SUB ZERO, no response,
13
14
whether it be a letter or a supplemental response, has been received by Moving Party. The reasons for
15 the objection-only answers are without merit and SUB ZERO must be held to answer.
16 Because Moving Party was forced to bring this motion to compel further responses, Moving
17
Party requests sanctions in the amount of $5,000 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010
18
and 2030.010 et. seq. As set forth herein, this motion should be granted.
19
II.
20
21 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
22 On February 18, 2020, Moving Party propounded a complete set of discovery to SUB ZERO
23
including form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and a request for production of documents.
24
(See Ex. A to Declaration). To date, no response has been provided to the form interrogatories,
25
special interrogatories and production demand. (Decl., Ex. A.)
26
27
28
- 3 -
1 MOVING PARTY, reviewed the discovery responses and immediately realized that the
2 majority of the responses to special interrogatories consisted of nothing but objections, the production
3
demand response had no documents attached and a series of unfounded objections.
4
Consequently, MOVING PARTY sent an extensive meet and confer letter regarding the
5
discovery responses. (Decl., Ex. A.)
6
7 MOVING PARTY’s meet and confer letter addressed all of the objections stated by SUB
8 ZERO’ s responses and explained why those objections are without merit. The meet and confer gave
9
an additional ten days to provide supplemental responses to the discovery before motions to compel
10
would be filed.
11
12
13 III.
14 ARGUMENT
15
A. THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO GRANT THIS MOTION TO COMPEL
16
RESPONSES BECAUSE OF SUB ZERO‘S BLATANT FAILURE TO COMPLY
17
WITH THE DISCOVERY ACT
18
19 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 states:
20 (a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an
21 order compelling a further response if the party deems that any of the following apply:
22
(1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete...(3) An objection to
23
an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
24
25 Every court has the power to compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process in an
26 action or proceeding pending before and to use all necessary means to carry its jurisdiction into
27 effect. Fairfield v. Superior Court, (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 120; see also Morgan v. Southern
28
- 4 -
1 Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 976, 981, and Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency,
2 Inc., (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016 (judges have broad powers and responsibility to determine
3
what measure and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstance involving discovery disputes).
4
Moreover, one of the principal purposes of civil discovery is to do away with the sporting
5
theory of litigation, namely, surprise at trial and such purpose is accomplished by giving greater
6
7 assistance to parties in ascertaining the truth. See Thoren v. Johnston and Washer, (1972) 29
8 Cal.App.3d 270, 274.

9
The special interrogatories seek information that is clearly related to the subject matter of this
10
action in that most of them are contention interrogatories and seek information related to the
11
allegations made by the plaintiff in their complaint or the affirmative defenses asserted in the answer
12
13 filed by defendant.
14 Case law in California has clearly established that contention interrogatories are an important
15
and proper use of interrogatories.
16
“The importance of "contention" interrogatories was explained by our Supreme Court in
17
Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 280-281 [78 Cal. Rptr. 481, 455 P.2d 409]: "The
18
19 discovery laws in California are designed to expedite the trial of civil matters by (1) enabling counsel
20 to more quickly and thoroughly obtain evidence and evidentiary leads ... and (2) enabling counsel to
21 `set at rest' issues that are not genuinely disputed. [¶] `[T]o say that "contentions" are not a proper
22
subject of interrogatories is to subvert the whole theory of the [discovery] rules...." [¶] Accordingly, a
23
defendant in California courts may be required through discovery to disclose not only the evidentiary
24
25 facts underlying his affirmative defenses ... but also whether or not he makes a particular contention,
26 either as to the facts or as to the possible issues in the case...." [Citations omitted; italics added.]”
27 Estate of Luke, (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 1006, 1021.
28
- 5 -
1 The special interrogatories clearly meet the relevancy standard imposed by Code of Civil
2 Procedure § 2017.010 which states in pertinent part that, “Discovery may relate to the claim or
3
defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.”
4
5
B. SUB ZERO‘S LACK OF RESPONSES TO THE MAJORITY OF THE SPECIAL
6
7 INTERROGATORIES ARE WITHOUT MERIT AND REQUIRE SUPPLEMENTAL
8 RESPONSES
9
Pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1345, SUB ZERO’s failure to respond equates to nothing but
10
repeated, boilerplate objections.
11
General objections to an entire set are improper. See, Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.210(a)
12
13 (3); see also Korea Data Sys. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court, (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.
14 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(a) and (b) bestow an affirmative duty to provide a
15
response that is as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the
16
responding party permits.” False or evasive answers or the posting of objections without a proper
17
basis is grounds for discovery sanctions. “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
18
19 but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co., (1999) 69
20 Cal.App.4th 64, 76.

21 Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the
22
information sought is improper. Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.
23
24
25 Objection Based On “Overbroad and oppressive”
26 One of Plaintiff’s boilerplate objections is to state that the discovery requested is overbroad
27 and oppressive. To the extent that Plaintiff truly believes that the discovery is burdensome and
28
- 6 -
1 harassing, their recourse would have been to meet and confer before responding and to file a motion
2 for protective order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2019.030 and 2030.090. The Discovery
3
Act provides that one of the main purposes of a protective order is to prevent a party from harassing
4
another party with burdensome and unnecessary discovery. See e.g., Weil & Brown, California
5
Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 8:1007 et. seq. (Rutter Group, 2008). Moreover, a
6
7 discovery burden is only undue if the inconvenience and expense of responding clearly outweigh the
8 benefits likely to be obtained if the interrogatories are answered. Id.; Code of Civil Procedure §
9
2019.030(a), (b).
10
False or evasive answers or the posting of objections without a proper basis is grounds for
11
discovery sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(f).
12
13 Moreover, objections must be specific; a motion to compel lies where objections are too
14 general. Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300; Korea Data Systems Ltd. Co. v. Superior Court, supra,
15
51 Cal.App.4th at p. 1516 (holding that objecting party was subject to sanctions for boilerplate
16
objections).
17
Courts are loathe to sustain an objection on the ground that the discovery is burdensome and
18
19 harassing because it is considered a weak objection. It is not enough that the question or questions
20 are burdensome; the objecting party must also demonstrate that the questions are so unjust that they
21 amount to oppression. West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 419.
22
It must appear that the amount of work required to answer the questions is so great, and the
23
utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require
24
25 answers. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1968) 263 CalApp.2d 12, 19.
26
27
28
- 7 -
1 Furthermore, for a responding party to sustain an objection on the ground that the discovery is
2 duplicative is essentially an “asked and answer” objection, which is also improper in responding to
3
written discovery. See, Coy v. Superior Court, (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 218.
4
Accordingly, this objection should be disregarded.
5
7 “Vague and Ambiguous” Objection
8 SUB ZERO has also posted objections to some of the special interrogatories based on “vague
9
and ambiguous,” which is unfounded given the fact that objections to discovery based upon “vague,
10
ambiguous and unintelligible” were categorically overruled more than 50 years ago by the California
11
Supreme Court. See, Cembrook vs. Superior Court, (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 428-430 (“The objections
12
13 filed by Sterling in summary, are that the requests are irrelevant to the subject matter of the action,
14 are ambiguous, call for the conclusions and interpretations of the litigant...The claims of ambiguity,
15
calling for opinion and conclusion, and those other objections summarized above, have been
16
discussed in the other decisions filed this day. There were there found to be untenable.”).
17
In West Pico vs. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 421, the Court held that:
18
19 [T]here is no question of relevancy, and SUB ZERO raises none. Its objections are that the
20 question assumes a fact not in evidence, and that it is compound in form. The interrogatory makes no
21 such assumption, and it is not compound. But even if both objections were meritorious, that would
22
not be grounds for objection to an interrogatory propounded under the provisions of section 2030 of
23
the Code of Civil Procedure. As was pointed out in the Greyhound case, objections such as here
24
25 raised to the form of the question are for the protection of a witness on oral examination. When, as
26 here, the answer is to be made in writing, after due time for deliberation and consultation with
27 counsel, an answer may be framed which avoids the pitfalls, if any, inherent in the form of the
28
- 8 -
1 question. SUB ZERO, in an attempt to avoid this conclusion, claims that the rules for interrogatories
2 propounded under section 2030 are the same as those for the taking of oral depositions. This is not
3
so. Id. (emphasis Added); Greyhound vs. Superior Court, (1961 56 Cal.2d 355, 391.
4
Thus, SUB ZERO’s objections as to the form of the question presented are without merit.
5
7 Objection Based On Number Of Statutory Interrogatories Exceeded
8 SUB ZERO also objected to Special Interrogatories as follows: “Objection. The number of
9
interrogatories propounded exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted by CCP Section
10
2030.030.”
11
This objection is entirely without merit with respect to interrogatories because the special
12
13 interrogatories were served with a valid, executed declaration for additional discovery in
14 compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.040(a), 2030.050.

15
Furthermore, their objection was inappropriate as the proper method for challenging these
16
interrogatories. If the responding party deems the number of interrogatories excessive, then the
17
appropriate method to challenge them is to seek a protective order under Code of Civil Procedure §
18
19 2030.090.
20 The statute authorized more than 35 interrogatories when accompanied by a “declaration of

21 necessity,” “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order.” Code of Civil
22
Procedure § 2030.040(a). The clear implication is that the responding party cannot simply object to
23
more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party must seek a protective order within the
24
25 time and manner required by the Discovery Act. Catanese v. Superior Court, (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th
26 1159, 1165; see, Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 8:950 et.
27 seq. (Rutter Group, 2008).
28
- 9 -
1 C. SUB ZERO SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR ITS WILLFUL FAILURE TO
2 PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO THE SET OF SPECIAL

3
INTERROGATORIES
4
As set forth above, section 2030.300(d) makes mandatory the issuance of monetary sanctions
5
against a party who refuses to properly engage in open discovery in a civil action. Code of Civil
6
7 Procedure § 2030.300(d). Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010 states, in pertinent part:
8 “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following...(e) making,
9
without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery, (f) making an evasive
10
response to discovery.”
11
“Monetary sanctions encourage voluntary compliance with discovery procedures by assessing
12
13 the costs of compelling compliance against the defaulting party." Pratt v. Union Pacific Railroad
14 Co., (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 165, 183 (citing Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1179).
15
Here, SUB ZERO’s failure to serve a supplemental response was willful.
16
As more fully set forth in the declaration of RAV REDDY, as a result of the need for this
17
motion, she spent hours researching, assembling, drafting, proofreading, and finalizing the instant
18
19 motion, including the preparation of the separate statement accompanying this motion. Moving
20 Party is being charged $250 per hour for attorney services.

21 Accordingly, the Court is urged to grant sanctions in the amount of $5,000 against SUB
22
ZERO for their willful failure to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories.
23
IV.
24
25 CONCLUSION
26 The Court is respectfully, yet earnestly, urged to grant this motion to compel further responses
27 to special interrogatories and to make an order of sanctions requested herein.
28
- 10 -
1
2 Dated________________ _______________________________________________
3
RAV REDDY
PRO SE
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 -
1
2 DECLARATION OF RAV REDDY_

3
I, RAV REDDY, declare:
4
1. I am an a pro se litigant, in the above-entitled proceedings and, as such, I have
5
knowledge of the matters contained herein and they are true and correct of my own personal
6
7 knowledge, except for those matters stated upon information and belief as to those matters, I believe
8 them to be true and correct. If called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently
9
thereto.
10
2. I am a party to this action. I am over the age of 18 years. I have personal
11
knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration, and if called as a witness could and would testify
12
13 competently to the facts as stated herein.
14 3. I have personal firsthand knowledge of the facts set forth herein and could and would
15
competently testify to the truth thereof if called as a witness.
16
4. I make this declaration in support of this motion for an order compelling further
17
responses to requests for production of documents and for monetary sanctions.
18
19 5. On February 18, 2020, my office propounded a complete set of discovery to
20 including form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and a request for production of documents.
21 6. To date, SUB ZERO has failed to provide a written response to the special
22
interrogatories and request for production of documents.
23
7. When I reviewed the discovery responses, I immediately realized that the majority of
24
25 the responses to the requests for production of documents consisted of nothing but objections,
26 numerous responses stated only, “N/A”, and the responses had no documents attached.
27
28
- 12 -
1 8. Consequently, on or about April 2020, I prepared and sent an extensive meet and
2 confer letter regarding the discovery responses. My meet and confer letter addressed all of the
3
objections stated by SUB ZERO’s responses and explained why those objections are without merit.
4
9. As of the filing of this motion no supplemental responses or documents have been
5
delivered to my office .
6
7 10. I spent numerous hours researching, assembling, drafting, proofreading, and finalizing
8 the instant motion, including the preparation of the separate statement accompanying this motion.
9
15. I anticipate that it will take a further 20 hours to prepare for, appear, prepare a reply,
10
and argue the instant motion in Superior Court in Contra Costra County.
11
16. Accordingly, the Court is urged to grant sanctions in the amount of $5,000 against
12
13 SUB ZERO for their willful failure to provide further responses to the special interrogatories.
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
15
is true and correct and that this declaration is executed on __________, at ALAMO, California.
16
17
_____________________________________________
18
RAV REDDY
19
20
21
______________,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 13 -

Motion To Compel-Special Interrogatories FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Motion To Compel-Special Interrogatories FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Compel-Special Interrogatories FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

9 ) Case No. MSC 19-02024

21 RAV REDDY will and hereby do move this Court:

7 justify the objections stated therein.

9 provide further responses to Special Interrogatories.

21 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

19 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 states:

8 Cal.App.3d 270, 274.

7 INTERROGATORIES ARE WITHOUT MERIT AND REQUIRE SUPPLEMENTAL

20 Cal.App.4th 64, 76.

25 Objection Based On “Overbroad and oppressive”

7 “Vague and Ambiguous” Objection

7 Objection Based On Number Of Statutory Interrogatories Exceeded

14 compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.040(a), 2030.050.

20 The statute authorized more than 35 interrogatories when accompanied by a “declaration of

2 PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO THE SET OF SPECIAL

20 Party is being charged $250 per hour for attorney services.

2 DECLARATION OF RAV REDDY_

13 competently to the facts as stated herein.

19 5. On February 18, 2020, my office propounded a complete set of discovery to

You might also like