SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff Fernando Jacobs moves to compel Defendant Jeffrey C. Chaney to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of special interrogatories, numbers 14, 23-25, and 27-32. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to numbers 14, 23-25, 27-30, and 32. The motion is denied as to number 31.
A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
Each answer i
Hearing Date
September 18, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff Fernando Jacobs moves to compel Defendant Jeffrey C. Chaney to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of special interrogatories, numbers 14, 23-25, and 27-32. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to numbers 14, 23-25, 27-30, and 32. The motion is denied as to number 31.
A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
Each answer i