The defendants responded to Form Interrogatory 17.1 with boilerplate objections and refused to provide the requested

Not sure what you mean by boilerplate objections in this instance. Did the responding party provide any response to 17.1 with respect to the request for admissions, notwithstanding the objections? "Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought is improper." (Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (2004) § 8:1048.1, pg. 8F-36.3; see also Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 ["Nor may a party, by deftly worded conclusionary answers, evade a series of explicit questions."] and Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 580 ["Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories."].)

If all you got were objections, your meet and confer must focus on the objections made. If the objections are without merit you need to discuss that. If the objections raise legitimate concerns like overbreadth or ambiguity, you can negotiate further definition of the question to eliminate the concerns. This meet and confer will require you to fully understand the legal bases for the objections so that you can identify whether they are simply obstreperous noise and delay creators or legitimate objections to be addressed. This is where you really need some attorney guidance. Good luck to you.

Yes, if there's a good reason for it. I agree with Mr. Chen that Weil and Brown is probably the best (as I see it) as to civil procedure before trial. Rutter has an excellent section as to objections to discovery and meet and confer examples. Since you're representing yourself, you'd have to apply the law to the facts.