The Second Special Interrogatories Were Duplicative Of First Special Interrogatories To Which No Motion To Compel Was Made, So The Lower Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Award Sanctions The Second Time Around.
We post on this one to share a nifty older case for litigators embroiled in discovery battles to keep in their back pockets.
What happened in Estate of Huang, Case No. B307671 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 17, 2021) (unpublished) is that a probate litigant served 723 special interrogatories—yes, you read right—to which no motion to compel was filed after some objections and responses were made. Not to be deterred, the litigant served 54 special interrogatories in a second set discovery wave which, although smaller in number, were clones of prior special interrogatories in the first set. The trial court felt shackled when facing some of the objections to the second set of special interrogatories which it deemed were unwarranted, awarding $17,427 in monetary sanctions against the objecting side. However, the appellate court reversed all the sanctions based on Prof’l Career Colleges, Magna Inst. v. Superior Court, 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 492-493 (1989). That case established that a trial judge is without jurisdiction to grant sanctions on a second discovery wave which is a “clone” of a first wave for which the time to bring a motion to compel has passed.
In a telling footnote, the 2/4 DCA panel also indicated the 723 special interrogatories were excessive and violated the L.A. County Superior Court Civility Guidelines (Local Rules Appendix 3.A(g)(1)), which states that interrogatories are to be used sparingly and not as harassment instruments.
Comments