Before filing a motion to compel the party seeking to compel the further responses must make a reasonable effort to meet and confer with the other party to avoid the need for judicial intervention. California Rule of Court 3.1020 requires that a separate statement be filed and served listing each discovery request, the response, and the basis for compelling a further response.
The principal objective of statutes relating to interrogatories is to provide a discovery procedure directed to an adverse party. Associates Discount Corp. v. Tobb Co., 241 Cal.App.2d 541, 551 (1966). Judges have broad discretion in controlling course of discovery and making various decisions necessitated by discovery proceedings. Obregon v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431-432 (1998).
Many times responses will contain “boilerplate” objections such as vague and ambiguous. General objections such as those are particularly vulnerable to a motion to compel.
General objections to an entire set of interrogatories are improper. See Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.210(a)(3).
Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(a) and (b) bestow an affirmative duty to provide a response that is as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” False or evasive answers or the posting of objections without a proper basis is grounds for discovery sanctions. “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co., 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76, (1999). Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought is improper. Deyo v. Kilbourne, 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783, (1978).
Furthermore, for a responding party to sustain an objection on the ground that the discovery is duplicative is essentially an “asked and answer” objection, which is also improper in responding to written discovery.
If the responding party deems the number of interrogatories excessive, then the appropriate method to challenge them is to seek a protective order under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.090.
All costs associated with the motion to compel, including court costs and attorney fees are recoverable in filing a motion to compel. A party seeking a motion to compel should be sure to document all of their attempts to meet and confer, and also document all of their costs associated with filing the motion.
Attorneys or parties in California who wish to view a portion of a sample motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories for sale by the author can see below.
Attorneys or parties in California that would like more information on a California law and motion litigation document package containing over 55 sample documents including a sample motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories can use the link shown below.
The author of this article, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.
Subscribe to his weekly newsletter with legal tips and tricks for California. http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
Filed under: California civil litigation, California freelance paralegal Tagged: | California civil litigation, california discovery, California law, California special interrogatories, Law, motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, motion to compel in California