B.B. vs SPARE-TIME, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

On May 16, 2024, Defendant propounded its Form Interrogatories, Set Two, which included Form Interrogatory Nos. 50.1-50.6, which relate to contracts. On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff served responses, with each response stating, “Not applicable. There is no agreement or contract alleged in the complaint. Additionally, Responding Party is a minor, and as such, is not of the legal age to enter into a contract.” (See Rosas Decl., Exh. B.) The parties met and conferred, and Defendant clarified that the reference to “the pleadings” in the interrogatories included the FAA

23CV004953: B.B. vs SPARE-TIME, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 12/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54

and the membership agreement. On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff served supplemental responses, each of which stated, “The interrogatory is ambiguous and unintelligible in the context of the litigation because the interrogatory is drafted for use in a breach of contract action and this is a personal injury case.” (See Rosas Decl., Exh. F.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and evasive, and that to the extent Plaintiff asserted objections in her supplemental responses, those objections are waived as they were not asserted with the initial responses. Defendant further contends that the interrogatories are appropriate in this case despite the fact that this is a personal injury matter and Plaintiff has not alleged a breach of contract claim, because Defendant has asserted the affirmative defense of express assumption of the risk based on the alleged membership agreement and the rules and regulations.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the 50.0-series of form interrogatories is not applicable in this personal injury matter, and that “responding to these interrogatories would require Plaintiff to make sense of Defendant’s affirmative defense where this ‘agreement’ is alleged.” (Opp. MPA, p. 3:9-10.) Plaintiff further argues that the affirmative dense asserted in the FAA is unintelligible as it refers to the purported agreement as well as Rio Del Oro’s Rules and Regulations but with unclear references to specific paragraph numbers within those documents.

Plaintiff thus argues that “it is not Plaintiff’s burden to read Defendant’s answer to say something it does not, just to make sense of it in order to answer interrogatories about it.” (Opp. MPA, p. 4:3-5.) Plaintiff further contends that Defendant has had ample opportunity to obtain discovery about the membership agreement and rules and regulations document, both via written discovery and via the depositions of Plaintiff’s mother and father.

A response to an interrogatory must contain either an answer containing the information sought, an exercise of the responding party’s option to produce writings, and/or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210(a).) Responses to interrogatories “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(a).) “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2030.220(b).) Additionally, the Discovery Act obligates a responding party to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information sought by inquiry to sources within the party’s control. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).) “The statutory provisions [of the Civil Discovery Act] must be liberally construed in favor of discovery and the courts must not extend the statutory limitations upon discovery beyond the limits express by the Legislature.” (Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 738-739.)

“A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer. [Citation.] Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Further, “[a] party cannot state, ‘not applicable’

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV004953: B.B. vs SPARE-TIME, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 12/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54

where the interrogatory is clearly applicable to him.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff’s responses fail to comply with the requirements described in the preceding paragraphs. Although the 50.0-series form interrogatories are found under the heading titled, “Contract,” nothing in the form interrogatory instructions nor in the Discovery Act limit use of the interrogatories to breach of contract actions. The interrogatories simply refer to an “agreement alleged in the pleadings,” and where, as here, an agreement is alleged in a party’s answer, the interrogatories may be asked.

While the precise agreement(s) alleged in the FAA may be somewhat ambiguous, that does not excuse Plaintiff’s obligation to respond in a reasonably complete and straightforward manner. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Additionally, the fact that Defendant could have obtained the information sought via other discovery methods does not make the interrogatories improper. “A party is permitted to use multiple methods of obtaining discovery and the fact that information was disclosed under one method is not, standing alone, a proper basis for refusing to provide discovery.” (Irvington- Moore, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 739.)

The Court also agrees with Defendant that, to the extent Plaintiff’s supplemental responses include objections, such objections are waived as they were not asserted with the initial responses. (Scottsdale Ins. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273-274.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve verified further responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, by no later than January 8, 2025.

No sanctions were requested.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV004953: B.B. vs SPARE-TIME, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 12/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54

argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

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 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.