Jack B Clarke vs. The Hertz Corporation

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 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

34-2023-00337069-CU-PO-GDS: Jack B Clarke vs. The Hertz Corporation 04/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories / 2 Remedies in Department 53

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:

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Plaintiff’s counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Plaintiff’s counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

Defendant The Hertz Corporation’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel Plaintiff Jack Clarke, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) further responses to special interrogatories, set one, is DENIED.

This is a personal injury action which arises out of an alleged trip and fall accident that occurred on May 21, 2022. Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for personal injury. On August 8, 2023, Defendant served special interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Giuliana Regina (“Regina Decl.”), Exhibit A.) On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff served his initial verified responses. (Id., Exhibit E.) After meeting and conferring, Plaintiff served verified supplemental responses on December 12, 2023. (Id., Exhibit I.)

Defendant moves for an order to compel Plaintiff’s further response to Special Interrogatory No. 8, which states in full:

Please IDENTIFY all HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS from whom you have received care of [sic] treatment since January 2, 2013 to the present date.

As a threshold matter, Defendant’s notice of motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1010, which requires the moving party to state the grounds for the motion in its notice of motion. Defendant’s notice recites, “[t]his notice is made on the grounds that appropriate and sufficient responses to the identified Interrogatory is absolutely essential to the subject matter of the action and Plaintiff has provided no substantial justification to Defendant for failing to provide such responses to date,” and is further based on “the relevant sections of the Code of Civil Procedure.” This notice does not list any of the grounds on which a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories may be based, as found in Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a). Code of Civil Procedure section

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337069-CU-PO-GDS: Jack B Clarke vs. The Hertz Corporation 04/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories / 2 Remedies in Department 53

2030.300(a) provides that a propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if 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.” Here, Defendant’s notice is defective, which is sufficient grounds to deny the motion.

Additionally, Defendant’s separate statement does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c), which is yet another reason to deny the motion. Rule 3.1345(c), states, in pertinent part:

A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference.

First, the separate statement does not provide Plaintiff’s initial response to the special interrogatory, which was served on October 20, 2023. Instead, the statement provides only Plaintiff’s supplemental response from December 12, 2023, which incorporates the October 20, 2023 objections by reference. (See Opposition at 4:1-12; Regina Decl., Exhibit I.) Defendant was required to provide the “text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers” in its separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c)(2).)

Second, Plaintiff’s supplemental response states, “[w]ithout waiving prior objections plaintiff further responds as follows: see plaintiffs [sic] responses to form interrogatories 6.4 through 6.6 identity of medical providers related to the subject incident have been provided (as well as medical records provided.)” Defendant contends in its separate statement that Plaintiff did not fully comply with the interrogatory because Plaintiff only identified those providers with whom he sought care as a result of the alleged accident. (Separate Statement at 3:6-9.)

However, Defendant did not include form interrogatories 6.4 through 6.6 or Plaintiff’s responses in its separate statement, which it was required to do. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c)(5) [“If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, . . . the other request and the response to it must be set forth”].) As a result, the Court cannot assess Plaintiff’s response to Special Interrogatory No.

8.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337069-CU-PO-GDS: Jack B Clarke vs. The Hertz Corporation 04/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories / 2 Remedies in Department 53

Third, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c)(4) states the separate statement must include: “[i]f necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it.” Here, in order to understand Plaintiff’s responses, including the objections based on overbreadth, relevance, and privacy asserted in its initial responses, Defendant should also have included its definition of “HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.” Without the definition, the Court cannot evaluate the scope or relevance of the request since “HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS” could be broadly or narrowly defined depending on the context. This definition was necessary to understand the request and the response, and it should have been provided in the separate statement.

Accordingly, the motion is also denied for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c).

The parties did not request monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.

Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)