Mannino v. Superior Court

Opinion

CROSBY, Acting P. J.

Petitioner Mannino seeks review of the denial without prejudice of his motion to compel Southern California Edison Company (Edison) to answer his sixth set of interrogatories without objection and his request for sanctions.

Mannino’s personal injury action was scheduled for trial on February 7, 1983. On September 21, 1982, he propounded a set of 190 interrogatories. At Edison’s request, on October 18, 1982, Mannino’s counsel granted an extension to November 24, 1982, to respond. A verified response was finally served on November 30, 1982; it included objections to 151 of the 190 questions. The objections claimed the questions were vague and ambiguous, the answers would be remote and irrelevant, and the effort required to answer overly

[778]

burdensome. Mannino’s attempt to resolve the matter per California Rules of Court, rule 222.1 was unsuccessful; and his motion to compel further answers without objection and for sanctions was heard and denied without prejudice on December 28, 1982, only five weeks before trial. The court apparently thought petitioner should tailor the questions to meet Edison’s objections, but no waiver of the ban against discovery within thirty days of trial was requested or ordered. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 222.) We issued an alternative writ of mandate and stayed the trial to review the superior court’s action.

Ordinarily, a party who fails to respond to interrogatories within the 30-day period, or any extension or enlargement of time, waives the right to interpose objections.

(Leach

v.

Superior Court

(1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 [169 Cal.Rptr. 42].) Belated objections are not valid unless the defaulting party demonstrates good cause to grant relief from default.

(Deyo

v.

Kilbourne

(1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 785 [149 Cal.Rptr. 499].) The burden is on the defaulting party to seek and justify relief.