This letter identifies deficiencies in a party's responses to discovery requests and meets and confers regarding a motion to compel further responses and testimony at a deposition. Specifically, it notes boilerplate objections that do not comply with the code, objections to interrogatories that involve a single subject, and a party's blanket refusal to answer deposition questions or provide documents using a privilege claim. The letter provides citations and encourages resolving the issues without judicial intervention.

1. MEET AND CONFER LETTER FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Date:
Any Party
Any Street
Any Town, CA 99999
1RE: John Doe v. John Poe
Dear ____:
I have reviewed your client’s responses to the discovery requests that this office served
upon you, on behalf of your client, ______________________.
After a careful review of the responses I have found the following deficiencies.
1. The objections to special interrogatories numbers __ and __ do not state in detail
how the particular interrogatory is compound, conjunctive or disjunctive, or how they
contain a subpart. This type of boilerplate objection is not code compliant.
Also the objections to special interrogatories numbers __ and __ also on the grounds of
not being full and complete in and of itself, subparts, and a compound, conjunctive or
disjunctive question does not state in detail how the particular interrogatory is compound,
conjunctive or disjunctive, or how they contain a subpart. This type of boilerplate
objection is not code compliant. And the objection that the term “release agreement
pleaded as an affirmative defense” is vague and ambiguous, does not specify how it is
vague and ambiguous. Further, the objection that it calls for a legal conclusion has no
merit.
The responses to special interrogatories numbers _____________________ as not
applicable are too general and definitely not code compliant as they are incomplete.
This renders the objections not in compliance with the code. Code of Civil
Procedure § 2030.300 states in pertinent part that, “(a) 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.” (emphasis added).
2. Your reliance on Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App 4th 1277 is interesting in
that Clement v. Alegre, supra also states at 1291 that, “ Even the treatise upon
which plaintiffs rely urges a practical approach to questions of interpretation. In referring
to the prohibition of "compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive" questions (§ 2030.060,

2. subd. (f)), Weil & Brown point out that the "purpose again is to prevent questions worded
so as to require more information than could be obtained by 35 separate questions. [¶]
How strictly this rule will be applied remains to be seen. Arguably, any question
containing an `and' or `or' is compound and conjunctive!" (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice
Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, ¶ 8:978.1, p. 8F 21.) They comment that
"[t]he rule should probably apply only where more than a single subject is covered by the
question. Questions regarding the same subject should be allowed although they include
an `and' or `or.' For example: `State your first name, middle name and last name, and
your current address and telephone number.' Since only one subject is involved
identification of responding party the question should not be objectionable because of the
`ands' used." ( Id. at ¶ 8:979, p. 8F 21.)”
Since the interrogatories that your client objected to involve only one subject you cannot
be assured that the objections will be upheld if any motion to compel is filed. I am
surprised that you would have objected as you did after reading the case that you cited in
your objections. Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.240 (a) states that, “If only a part of an
interrogatory is objectionable, the remainder of the interrogatory shall be answered.”
One of your boilerplate objections is to state that the discovery requested is overbroad
and oppressive. To the extent that you truly believe that the discovery is burdensome and
harassing, your recourse would have been to meet and confer before responding and to
file a motion for protective order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2019.030 and
2030.090. The Discovery Act provides that one of the main purposes of a protective
order is to prevent a party from harassing another party with burdensome and
unnecessary discovery. See e.g., Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil
Procedure Before Trial, § 8:1007 et. seq. (Rutter Group, 2008).
Moreover, a discovery burden is only undue if the inconvenience and expense of
responding clearly outweigh the benefits likely to be obtained if the interrogatories are
answered. Id.; Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.030(a), (b).
False or evasive answers or the posting of objections without a proper basis is grounds
for discovery sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(f).
Moreover, objections must be specific; a motion to compel lies where objections are too
general. Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300; Korea Data Systems Ltd. Co. v. Superior
Court, 1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516 (holding that objecting party was subject to
sanctions for boilerplate objections).
Courts are loathe to sustain an objection on the ground that the discovery is burdensome
and harassing because it is considered a weak objection. It is not enough that the
question or questions are burdensome; the objecting party must also demonstrate that the
questions are so unjust that they amount to oppression. West Pico Furniture Co. v.
Superior Court, (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 419.

3. MEET AND CONFER LETTER FOR MOTION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY AT
DEPOSITION
Date:
Any Party
Any Street
Any Town, CA 99999
1RE: John Doe v. John Poe
Dear ____:
On _____________this office served a valid notice of deposition and request to produce
documents on your office on behalf of your client ________. Said deposition was
scheduled for __________.
No objection of any kind was received by your office at any time prior to, or after the
duly noticed deposition.
However on ____________ your client appeared at the deposition yet refused to answer
any questions using a blanket claim of the privilege against self-incrimination and also
refused to produce any documents that were listed in the deposition notice.
This letter shall serve as my initial attempt to comply with my meet and confer
obligations under California law.
I have included citations below in the hopes that once you have reviewed them you will
contact me in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution to this matter without the need
for judicial intervention so I will not have to resort to filing a motion to compel.
Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.480 states in pertinent part that,
“(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically
stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the
deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the
court for an order compelling that answer or production.
(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of
the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.”
Every party to an action may take depositions as a matter of right. See Greyhound v.
Superior Court (1961), 56 Cal.2d 355, 388; see also Kramer v. Superior Court (1965),
237 Cal.App.2d 753, 755; and Goodman v. Citizens Life & Cas. Ins. Co. (1967), 253
Cal.App.2d 807, 819.

4. To view the sample document on which this preview is based
visit:
https://www.scribd.com/document/337889302/Sample-Meet-
and-Confer-Letters-for-Discovery-in-California