Fuheng, Inc. et al. v. Ling Yeung

Defendant Ling Yeung’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set two, and further responses to request for production, set two. Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by plaintiffs Fuheng, Inc., and Dalong Zhang.

Defendant’s meet and confer efforts were minimal, but the court does not deny the motion on that basis because defendant exchanged e-mail messages with plaintiffs’ counsel before filing the motion to compel.

Special Interrogatories: Each party is generally limited to 35 special interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (b).) A party requesting more than 35 special interrogatories must include a declaration with the information described in Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.050. Where no such declaration is made, a party need respond only to the first 35 specially prepared interrogatories served, if that party states an objection to the balance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (c).)

Defendant’s first set of special interrogatories included 20. Set two included an additional 20. That exceeds the limit of 35. Plaintiffs object on the basis that defendant exceeded the maximum number of allowable special interrogatories. But plaintiffs do not explain why they apparently refused to respond to any of set two. Plaintiffs were required to respond to special interrogatories one through 24 of set two, and then could object to and not respond to the balance. The motion to compel responses to the special interrogatories is therefore GRANTED IN PART.

Requests for Production: A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things “must be accompanied by a separate statement.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a); Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production, set two, was not accompanied by a separate statement. The motion is DENIED as to those requests.