Kathryn Sue Scroggin v. City of Santa Barbara, et al

Case Number

25CV04989

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/11/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Kathryn Sue Scroggin: Katelyn P. Dembowski                                    

For Defendant City of Santa Barbara: Sarah J. Knecht, Tom R. Shapiro, Delaney R. Satz

RULING

The motion of Defendant City of Santa Barbara to compel further responses to interrogatories is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff Kathryn Sue Scroggin shall serve a further verified response to special interrogatories, set one, No. 25, without objection and in a form complying with the Code of Civil Procedure, on or before February 26, 2026. In all other respects, including the request for an award of monetary sanctions, the motion is denied.

Background

This is an action arising out of a trip and fall at East Beach Park in Santa Barbara.

On September 18, 2025, Defendant City of Santa Barbara (City) propounded form interrogatories, set one (FI), and special interrogatories, set one (SI), on Plaintiff Kathryn Sue Scroggin. (Satz decl., ¶ 3.)

On October 28, 2025, Scroggin served unverified responses to the interrogatories. (Satz decl., ¶ 3.)

On November 17, 2025, following email discussions of counsel, Scroggin provided verifications to the responses, but did not serve supplemental responses at that time. (Satz decl., ¶ 5.)

On December 4, 2025, City filed this motion to compel further responses as to FI Nos. 12.1 and 12.4, and SI Nos. 21, 23, and 25.

On December 31, 2025, Scroggin served supplemental responses, with verifications served on January 14, 2026. (Dembowski decl., ¶¶ 2, 3 & exhibits 1, 2.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Scroggin provided supplemental responses to FI Nos. 12.1 and 12.4 and to SI Nos. 23 and 25 but did not provide supplemental responses to SI No. 21. Because of the supplemental responses, the motion is moot as to FI Nos. 12.1 and 12.4 and as to SI Nos. 23. City asserts that the motion is not moot as to SI Nos. 21 and 25. (Reply, at pp. 2-3.)

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

“(1)      An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

“(2)      An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

“(3)      An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

No supplemental response was provided to SI No. 21.

SI No. 21 is: “If YOU received medical treatment on the day of the alleged INCIDENT, how were YOU transported from the scene of the alleged INCIDENT to a healthcare facility?”

The response to SI no. 21 is: “Plaintiff’s family drove her to the hospital. Discovery and investigation continue. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response.”

City asserts that this response is insufficient because “Plaintiff did not provide an amended discovery response for this request identifying, by name, who took her to the hospital.” (City Reply, p. 2.)

“Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).)

“If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).)

“If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

The first sentence of the response is sufficient. The interrogatory asks how Plaintiff was transported to the hospital. The interrogatory does not ask who transported Plaintiff to the hospital or to explain the circumstances of the transportation. The response answers the “how” question fully and completely (i.e., she was driven, as opposed to, for example, being taken away by ambulance). No further response is required.

The last two sentences of the response are superfluous. A response to an interrogatory need only be complete as of the time of the response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.060, subd. (g), 2030.220, subd. (a).)

City argues that amended response to SI No. 25 is insufficient.

SI No. 25 is: “Describe with particularity the clothing YOU were wearing at the time of the alleged INCIDENT on September 28, 2024.”

The original response to SI No. 25 is: “Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.”

The amended response to SI No. 25 adds to the original response: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: as it relates to the shoes Plaintiff was wearing, Plaintiff was wearing leather loafers. Discovery and investigation continue. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response.”

The parties have not met and conferred as to the sufficiency of the response. Nonetheless, the Court notes that “clothing” refers to more than shoes. The type of clothing worn by Scroggin may be relevant because the type of clothing worn could explain the type or extent of damages claimed. The interrogatory therefore requests information within the scope of discovery. The objection as to relevance is overruled. The amended response fails to provide a complete response to the interrogatory. The Court will require a further response to SI No. 25.

Based upon the totality of the circumstances here, including the extent of the meet and confer process, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. The Court denies the request for an award of monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)