Kennedy vs. Emanuel

specific facts justifying each category of materials sought to be produced]; see also Spiegel Decl., in passim.)

Form interrogatories. Contrary to defendant’s contentions, defendant’s responses to the subject form interrogatories at issue effectively are objections on the grounds that they assume facts not in evidence, namely, “that [the] ‘INCIDENT’ took place.” (See Pl. Sep. Stmt., pp. 19-49; see also Spiegel Decl. at Ex. 11 [responses to form interrogatories].) As discussed above, defendant has waived any such objection by failing to serve timely responses, and there is no objection to an interrogatory on the ground that it assumes facts in any event. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v.

Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 421; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010.) Moreover, the objection would lack merit because the form interrogatories specifically define the term “INCIDENT” to mean “the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence ... giving rise to this action or proceeding.” (Spiegel Decl. at Ex. 4 [form interrogatories § 4(a)(1)].) Some of defendant’s responses to the subject form interrogatories also fail to answer the call of the question (for example, defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.11, 12.1-12.6, among others). (See Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783 [“deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions” are improper].)

Special interrogatories. Defendant’s responses to the subject special interrogatories are not complete and to this Court, fail to fully answer the call of these questions. (See Regency Health Services, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 1504 [duty to conduct a reasonable investigation to obtain responsive information and furnish information from all sources under his or her control]; Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.)

Plaintiff shall give notice.

5. Kennedy vs. Emanuel Motion to Seal

22-01248389 Plaintiffs Drake Kennedy and Stephanie Kennedy’s Motion to Seal is DENIED. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550.) In this situation, Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient factual showing of an overriding interest that supports sealing the records. (Cal Rules of Court, Rule 2.550