Gayle Roderick v. Carmel Beauty Boutique, et al.

to compel is filed, the responding party has the burden to justify any objection or failure to answer the interrogatories fully. [Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.]

In assessing the motion, a court should generally consider the following factors: (1) the relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings; (2) the likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery; and (3) the burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought. [Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.]

Evasive discovery responses and objections lacking adequate justification are considered “misuses of the discovery process.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subds. (e)-(f).] The Court “shall” require the party receiving discovery to pay the propounding party’s reasonable expenses, such as attorney fees, for enforcing discovery unless it finds that the sanctioned party acted with “substantial justification” or that other circumstances make the sanction unjust. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (d).] “Our courts have interpreted the term ‘substantial justification’ to mean ‘well-grounded in both law and fact.’ Thus, to avoid sanctions, the deponent must show there were reasonable grounds to believe an objection was valid or that the answer given was adequate.” [City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 291 (internal citations, bracketed text, and ellipsis omitted).]

2. Form Interrogatories.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, and Defendant shall fully respond to Nos. 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7. Although they provided their date of birth in response to No. 2.2, Defendant did not specify their “place of birth.” Defendant’s relevance objection to Nos. 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 is not well taken because the requested background information is relevant and necessary for a legitimate background investigation of Defendant in connection with this litigation. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.] Defendant’s remaining objections are equally unsupported because the atissue interrogatories are standard ones authored by the Judicial Council. They are not facially vague, nonsensical, or ambiguous.

The motion is DENIED as to Nos. 50.1 through 50.6. These interrogatories ask whether: (1) any alleged breach of the agreement in the Complaint occurred; (2) performance was justified; and (3) any agreement was terminated, ambiguous, or unenforceable. However, Plaintiff in her Complaint does not claim that the items purchased from the Boutique were not delivered or that the transaction involved a breach of contract. Instead, her lawsuit focuses on fraud claims related to a retail sale, making these interrogatories less appropriate for this case.

3. Sanctions.

Defendant requests $10,125 in sanctions for opposing the motion and criticizes Plaintiff for not limiting the scope of the motion before Defendant filed their opposition. Plaintiff’s May 1, 2026, letter did inform Defendant of the remaining issues in the motion. However, the Court will not impose sanctions on Plaintiff, who had the right to seek additional responses to her Form Interrogatories. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s sanctions request.

On the other hand, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Monetary sanctions are appropriate, and Defendant lacked substantial justification for a different order. When the motion was filed, Plaintiff had a valid reason to seek further responses from Defendant because of their objections-only responses. Although the parties worked together to resolve most issues, the motion still persisted to some degree and was only partly successful. Since the motion, extensions, continuances, and cooperation left only a few issues for the Court to decide, and were only partly successful, the Court will award sanctions, but not the full amount requested by Plaintiff.

Instead, the Court will order monetary sanctions of $2,060 to Plaintiff and against Defendant and their attorney, jointly and severally. This covers five hours of Plaintiff’s counsel’s work at an hourly rate of $400, plus the $60 filing fee.

Conclusion.

As detailed above, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART, and Defendant has 10 days from the date of service of the Court’s order to serve verified further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED IN PART, and Defendant need not further respond to Form Interrogatory Nos. 50.1 through 50.6.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Monetary sanctions of $2,060 are awarded to Plaintiff and against Defendant and their attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days from the date of service of the Court’s order. Defendant’s sanctions request is DENIED.

Plaintiff shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.

NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING

This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

3