Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21STCV32519, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32519    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49                                                          

Date: 4-26-23 (TBH with 4-25-23 MTC)

Case # 21STCV32519

Trial Date: Not Set

FURTHER INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Michelle Lagoy

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On September 7, 2019, Plaintiff Michelle Lagoy alleges sustaining second and third degrees burns on Plaintiff’s leg from the use of a product identified as My Little Steamer.

On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Product Liability, Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and Violations of the False Advertising Law.

On August 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Breach of Contract and Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on August 16, 2021 for Breach of Contract and Actual Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation. On November 1, 2022, Department 32 (PI Court) deemed case complicated, which led to the transfer of the action to Department 49.

Defendants Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC and HSN, Inc. answered the complaint on November 12, 2021 and June 17, 2022, respectively. On November 29, 2021, Macy’s filed a cross-complaint for implied equitable indemnity and declaratory relief. On March 27, 2023, Macy’s dismissed the cross-complaint without prejudice.

RULING: Denied/Moot.

Defendant, Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories numbers 12.1 and 14.1, and Special Interrogatories (set one), numbers 4, 10, 13, 14 and 17 from plaintiff Michelle Lagoy. Defendant submitted two separate motions, but the court considers the motions together on the same hearing date.

Defendant moves to compel further responses on grounds of improper objections and insufficient factual responses. Following service of the motion, Plaintiff admits to serving supplemental responses. The supplemental responses were not earlier provided, due to the mistaken provision of said responses to co-defendant HSN, rather than Macy’s. Plaintiff also contends the requested sanctions are disproportionate. The court electronic filing system shows no reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

"Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300."

(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

The supplemental responses provide further factual information. The court finds the responses sufficient for purposes of the subject motion.

The motion is therefore denied, as the responses render the motion moot.

Court policy generally allows for the imposition of sanctions against parties only providing supplemental responses following the filing of a motion. While the court accepts the mistake in service, the court still finds justification in the filing of the motion itself, since the error was only discovered after service of the motion. The court accordingly awards Defendant a total of $500 ($250/motion) in sanctions joint and several against Plaintiff and payable within 30 days.

Motions to compel further responses set for June 29, 2023.

Moving party to give notice.