In Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, the buyer seeking specific performance of a property sale contract had refused to answer deposition questions about his financial ability to purchase the property on privacy grounds. The Court of Appeal observed that the buyer's "objection does not appear to have been well-taken, for the buyer may not refuse to divulge this specific financial information after putting his ability to purchase the . . . property directly at issue by the allegations in his complaint. " (Gaggero v. Yura, at p. 891.) Nevertheless, the appellate court reversed a summary judgment for the seller, holding that the buyer's unjustified refusal to answer deposition questions about his condition did not in that case show that the buyer did not possess and could not reasonably obtain, needed evidence to satisfy this element of his claim. Unlike the case here, the seller in Gaggero had failed to move to compel a further response. (Gaggero v. Yura, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at pp. 891-892.) In that case, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of the absence of evidence of an element of the cause of action, i.e., the ability to pay for the property, in that, at his deposition, the plaintiff had refused to testify on the issue. (Id. at p. 890.) The court concluded that the absence of the plaintiff's testimony on his ability to pay did not equate to evidence that he did not have such ability and held that the defendant could not meet her evidentiary burden on her motion for summary judgment by "pointing out the absence of evidence" of the element of the cause of action based upon the plaintiff's refusal to testify. (Id. at pp. 890-891.)