FAYAZ vs JBPERRY HOLDINGS, INC., et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

23CV011146: FAYAZ vs JBPERRY HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 12/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 25

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Plaintiff Abdul Fayaz (“Plaintiff”) to compel further responses to its form interrogatories, set one, propounded to Defendant Derrick Caldwell (“Defendant”), and request for monetary sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(f), requiring electronic exhibits to include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and brief description of the exhibit. Further, as Defendant aptly points out in opposition, it appears Plaintiff has included multiple exhibits combined and grouped into one exhibit. (See, e.g., “Exhibit A” including “Discovery served by Plaintiff on Defendant Caldwell”; “Exhibit B” which includes “Extensions Requested by Defendant Caldwell Re Initial Discovery Responses”; etc.)

Compounding this issue, is the fact that Plaintiff’s declaration, at times, cites to the incorrect Exhibit grouping (see, e.g., Fareed Decl., ¶ 12 [incorrectly citing to Exh. A].) This has made the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s supporting evidence needlessly difficult and cumbersome. Plaintiff is advised to take better care in the organization of exhibits in any future filings.

Background

On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed her complaint. This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on November 14, 2022. (See Compl.) Through this motion, Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant’s further response to Plaintiff’s propounded form interrogatories, set one, interrogatories nos. 2.3, 2.13, 7.1, 12.3, 12.7, and 20.3. (Ntc. Mot.)

On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff propounded and served its requests for production, set one; special interrogatories, set one; and form interrogatories, set one, to Plaintiff. (Fareed Decl., ¶ 3.) After multiple extensions of time, Defendant served his unverified responses on October 4, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 4-10.) On April 11, 2025, Defendant served his verifications. (Fareed Decl., ¶ 12, Exh. D; Alley Decl., ¶ 6.) After subsequent meet-and-confer discussions, Defendant served verified amended responses on May 22, 2025. (Fareed Decl., ¶ 14; Alley Decl., ¶ 8, Exh.

C.) On July 7, 2025, Defendant served its second amended responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories. (Fareed Decl., ¶ 19; Alley Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. D.) After continued meet-and-confer discussions, on July 18, 2025, Defendant served its third amended responses to Plaintiff’s propounded form interrogatories, set one. (Fareed Decl., ¶ 25, Exh. D; Alley Decl., ¶13, Exh. F.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV011146: FAYAZ vs JBPERRY HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 12/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 25

Plaintiff’s counsel maintains that despite the amendments, several interrogatories were still ignored, and many responses were not code-compliant. (Fareed Decl., ¶ 26.) It appears that, at the time of filing the motion, verifications for Defendant’s second and third amended responses were not provided. (See Alley Decl., ¶¶ 10, 15.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve further responses in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,600. Defendant opposes the motion.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) states:

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires that responses to interrogatories be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits, and “if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a), (b); see also Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 788-89.)

Objections

In certain responses, Defendant has interspersed objections such as unduly burdensome, oppressive harassing, immaterial, and irrelevant. Defendant also appears to have asserted objections on the basis of privilege, i.e., seeks to invade attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product privileges and/or it seeks information obtained in anticipation of litigation, and seeks premature disclosure of expert information.

As to Defendant’s objections based on privilege (e.g., attorney-client, privacy, etc.) he failed to indicate whether any information was actually withheld on this basis. While the Court will not overrule these privilege objections at this point, to the extent Defendant withholds any

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV011146: FAYAZ vs JBPERRY HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 12/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 25

information on the basis of privilege, he must provide further responses that provide sufficient factual information for other parties (Plaintiff) to evaluate the merits of that claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240.) In general, an interrogatory may ask the responding party to identify documents as to which a privilege is claimed. The existence of a privileged document is not generally privileged. Therefore, an adequate response must include a description of the documents, even if the party has the right to object to a demand for their production. (See Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293.) Otherwise, if the response does not actually implicate privilege (i.e., the objection is inapplicable), the privilege-based objections must be removed from any further response.

First, as to Defendant’s objections based on relevance, these objections are OVERRULED. For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is not the test and information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery, and (contrary to popular belief) fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Plaintiff has demonstrated that the subject discovery meets this liberal standard.

As to Defendant’s objections based on undue burden, these are also OVERRULED. Defendant argues that because he is not making a claim for damages sustained to his vehicle, any inquiry into the amount of damages he claims (Form Interrogatory No. 7.1 (c)) would be unduly burdensome/oppressive. Importantly, undue burden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) Defendant makes no effort to otherwise explain the amount of work necessary to respond would amount to an undue burden. Further, upon review subject discovery, the Court is unpersuaded that Defendant’s response would amount to undue burden – if Defendant contends that he does not make any claim for damages, he may simply state as so.

Any objection not specifically discussed above is also OVERRULED as it was addressed by Defendant in opposing the motion. In opposing a motion to compel further responses, the burden is on the opposing party to justify any objection or failure to provide complete responses. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing to Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220, 221].)

Interrogatories Nos. 2.3 & 2.13

Defendant’s amended responses to these interrogatories contained the following language: “Responding party has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information requested in this interrogatory and does not have personal knowledge sufficient to provide a meaningful response.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV011146: FAYAZ vs JBPERRY HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 12/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 25

A response simply stating “inability to respond” is legally insufficient – if the responding party lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond, the party may so state, but only after making a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other persons or organizations. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406.)

Despite these form interrogatories seeking general background information (such as whether Defendant had a driver’s license at the time of the incident), Defendant has responded that following a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information, Defendant lacks personal knowledge. At first blush, these responses appear to be Code compliant. However, it does not appear that Defendant has provided verifications for these amended responses (Defendant’s second and third amended responses)[1].

Unverified factual responses are no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all]; Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651 [only objections are timely in unverified responses containing factual assertions and objections.].) As Defendant has failed to provide a verification in support of his attestation, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to these interrogatories.

Interrogatory No 7.1

Interrogatory No. 7.1 requests the following:

Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item: (a) describe the property; (b) state the nature and location of the damage; (c) state the amount of damages you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount was calculated; and (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price.

(See Sep. Stmt.)

In his amended response, Defendant provides:

Yes. a. Ford E 250; b. Damage to bumper, right fender and side; c. objection: unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing, immaterial, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Defendant is not making a claim for damages herein. Without waiving said objections, Responding party has made a good and reasonable good faith effort to obtain the information requested in this interrogatory, and does not have personal knowledge sufficient to provide a meaningful response. D. sold to SOL Business services.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV011146: FAYAZ vs JBPERRY HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 12/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 25

(Ibid.)

As stated above, because Defendant failed to provide verifications for his amended responses (second and third amended), Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. The Court further notes, Defendant’s amended response appears to be contradictory and incomplete. As to subpart (d), Defendant’s response which simply states “sold to SOL Business services,” is incomplete as it does not provide the name, address, and telephone number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price. As to subpart (c), while Defendant appears to indicate that he does attribute loss/damage to a vehicle or property (stating at the beginning of his response “yes” to “[d]o you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property”), his response to subpart (c) indicates to the contrary: “Defendant is not making a claim for damages herein.” It is unclear from Defendant’s response whether or not he makes any claim for damages.

Further, as noted, Defendant’s objections have been overruled.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 12.3

Interrogatory No. 12.3 requests the following:

Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; (c) the date the statement was obtained; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or a copy.

(See Sep. Stmt.)

In his amended response, Defendant provides:

Objection: This question seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product privileges. Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App.4th 214. Objection: The request is burdensome and constitute harassment in that it requires defendant to locate, compile, and produce information equally available to the propounding party. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2030.230, Responding Party directs propounding party to the Traffic Collision Report which Responding Party believes contains the information sought in this Interrogatory.

(Ibid.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV011146: FAYAZ vs JBPERRY HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 12/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 25

As stated above, because Defendant failed to provide verifications for his amended responses (second and third amended), Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. The Court further notes, Defendant’s amended response is deficient and not Code compliant. Where Defendant has raised objections based on privilege (e.g., attorney-client, privacy, etc.) he failed to indicate whether any information was actually withheld on this basis and does not clearly provide the basis for any such withholding. (Cf.

Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214, 216-218 [disapproving compelling of further response where a list of potential witnesses would reveal counsel’s evaluation of the case, but approving compelling of further response if it is determined that counsel obtained an independently written or recorded statement where the response was “Counsel for the Defendants has conducted interviews of employees of Nacht & Lewis Architects. The information collected from the interviews is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine”].)

Defendant’s additional objections have been overruled.

To the extent that Defendant references Traffic Collision Report, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, Defendant’s amended response is not Code Compliant. (See Sep. Stmt, Defendant’s amended response to Interrogatory No. 12.3, stating: “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2030.230, Responding Party directs propounding party to the Traffic Collision Report.”])

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 provides:

If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained.

This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.

From the text of the statute, to properly answer an interrogatory invoking Section 2030.230, Defendant must show that a compilation, abstract, audit or summary of the responding party's records is necessary in order to answer the interrogatory; and no such compilation, etc. presently exists; and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the interrogating party as for the responding party.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV011146: FAYAZ vs JBPERRY HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 12/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 25

Defendant’s amended response, which simply states “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2030.230, Responding Party directs propounding party to the Traffic Collision Report which Responding Party believes contains the information sought in this Interrogatory,” is insufficient.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 12.7

Interrogatory No. 12.7 requests the following:

Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene of the INCIDENT? If so, for each inspection state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.210-2034.310); and (b) the date of the inspection.

(See Sep. Stmt.)

In his amended response, Defendant provides:

Objection: This question seeks to invade attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product privileges and/or it seeks information obtained in anticipation of litigation. It seeks premature disclosure of expert information. Without waiving these objections, Defendant, their representatives and others may have visited or driven through the scene, but no formal inspection has been performed by any of these individuals to Defendants knowledge. Investigation and discovery is continuing.

(Ibid.)

As stated above, because Defendant failed to provide verifications for his amended responses (second and third amended), Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Where Defendant has raised objections based on privilege (e.g., attorney-client, privacy, etc.) he failed to indicate whether any information was actually withheld on this basis. Defendant’s additional objections have been overruled.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 20.3

Interrogatory No. 20.3 requests the following:

State the address and location where your trip began and the address and location of your

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV011146: FAYAZ vs JBPERRY HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 12/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 25

destination.

(See Sep. Stmt.)

In his amended response, Defendant provides:

Defendant’s trip began in Fairfield, CA. Defendant worked at a job site, and was on the way back to Fairfield when the incident occurred.[2]

(Ibid.)

Defendant’s amended response is deficient and not Code compliant. Defendant fails to provide a full and complete answer to the interrogatory – Defendant does not state the address/location where his trip began, and the address/location of his destination.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to this interrogatory.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one, interrogatories nos. 2.3, 2.13, 7.1, 12.3, 12.7, and 20.3, is GRANTED as set forth herein.

Consistent with the above, Defendant shall serve verified further amended responses, without objections, no later than January 2, 2026, unless the parties otherwise agree to a later date confirmed in writing.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. The Court finds that sanctions would not be in the interest of justice under the facts provided to the Court at this time. Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, on the ground of relevance, is SUSTAINED. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 fn. 2 [“any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue”].) The Court notes that the attached document is a tentative ruling, not the final ruling of the court on the motion.

Furthermore, in taking judicial notice of court documents, the Court would only accept the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590 [judicial notice of findings of fact does not mean that those findings of fact are true]; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121 [“[W]hile the existence of any document in a court file may be judicially noticed, the truth of the matters asserted in those documents, including the factual findings of the judge who was sitting as the trier of fact, is not entitled to notice.”].)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV011146: FAYAZ vs JBPERRY HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 12/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 25

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.) [1] Counsel for Defendant asserts in his declaration that verifications were provided for the

amended responses served on May 22, 2025. (Alley Decl. ¶ 8.) However, the declaration is silent regarding verifications as to both the second and third amended responses, and no verifications were attached to these exhibits. (Alley Decl. ¶¶ 10, 13, Exhs. D, F.) [2] It appears that Defendant’s “amended response” was made in the initial amended responses

which included a verification.