Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV00710, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00710    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Motions filed: 11/13/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendants IComfort Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.; and Luis Anthony Juarez-Vasquez, Jr. (collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Omar Amezquita; and Mario Efrain Pineda Juarez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling each Plaintiff’s further responses to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory No. 11, within 20 days. Defendants further request monetary sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiffs and their counsel in the total amount of $1,560.80.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motions are denied. The Court imposes $200.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendants and/or their counsel.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiffs allege that on 6/1/21, they were injured in an automobile collision caused by defendant Luis Anthony Juarez-Vasquez, Jr., who was driving a vehicle owned and operated by defendant IComfort Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. (“IComfort”) within the scope of his employment with IComfort. (Compl. p. 4.)

On 3/10/23, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging against Defendants the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence. On 7/11/23, Defendants filed their answer thereto.

On 7/12/23, Defendants served their first set of Special Interrogatories on Plaintiffs. (Decl. of El Mahdi Young ¶ 3.) On 9/13/23, Plaintiffs served their responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

On 11/13/23, Defendants filed the instant motions to compel further responses to their first set of Special Interrogatories. On 3/28/24, Plaintiffs filed their oppositions. On 4/3/24, Defendants filed their reply.

ANALYSIS

“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) “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.) “If an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.240, subd. (b).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if 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; or (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendants seek to compel Plaintiffs’ additional responses to Special Interrogatory No. 11, arguing that Plaintiffs’ relevance objections thereto are without merit.

A.    Meet and Confer 

A motion to compel further interrogatory responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2016.040.) 

Here, Defendants’ counsel declares that on 10/20/23, 11/2/23, and 11/7/23, counsel for both parties met and conferred regarding the issues set forth in the instant motion but were unable to come to a resolution. (Young Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, 8.) Therefore, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (b)(1).

B.     Scope/Relevance

Discovery is relevant if it is admissible as evidence, or “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.” (Ibid.)

Patients have a right to privacy in their medical information under the California Constitution, although this right is not absolute. Invasion of a privacy interest is not a violation of the California constitutional right to privacy when the invasion is justified by a competing interest. (Fett v. Medical Bd. of Cal. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 211, 221.) Matters that would otherwise be protected by the constitutional right to privacy are discoverable only if they are directly relevant to the plaintiff's claim and essential to a fair resolution of the action. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

A party seeking access to constitutionally protected information has the burden of proving direct relevance. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.) “Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy.” (Id. at 1014.) “The scope of any disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed, drawn with narrow specificity, and must proceed by the least intrusive manner.” (Ibid.)

Here, Defendants’ Special Interrogatory No. 11 asks each Plaintiff to “state the name, address and telephone number of your regular personal physician and/or health care provider and/or primary health care provider for the past fifteen years.” (Defs.’ Sep. Stmt. 2:3–5.)

Plaintiffs’ responses set forth a number of objections, including that “this interrogatory seeks to discovery Plaintiff’s medical history and/or treatment which is completely unrelated to the issues in this litigation in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected right to privacy.” (Id. at 2:13–15.) “The requested records are beyond the permissible scope of discovery in this matter as they are neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information. Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend, supplement, or augment this response at a later time.” (Id. at 3:1–4.)

Defendants argue that a further response is warranted because “the information sought is relevant and discoverable as plaintiff is asserting personal injury and medical care as a result of those injuries, and as such, has placed his medical history at issue.” (Pl.’s Mot. 4:26–28.) “Determining who plaintiff’s primary care provider leads to discoverable information given that whether or not plaintiff sought treatment from this medical provider would be relevant. Moreover, determining whether plaintiff complained of any residual pain or if plaintiff treated for similar injuries prior to the incident are also all relevant information.” (Id. at 4:28–5:4.)

Plaintiffs argue in opposition that Special Interrogatory No. 11 is overly broad because “by way of this motion, Defendants seek to force Plaintiff to disclose every ‘regular doctor’ – as vague as the description may be – that Plaintiff has sought the past 15 years without any limitation. Based upon Defendants’ interpretation, Plaintiff should be forced to disclose every specialist or other doctors who he may have seen ‘regularly’ for concerns that are completely unrelated to the injuries and conditions placed at issue in this lawsuit.” (Pl.’s Opp. 4:24–5:1, citing Hallendorf v. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 553.)

In Hallendorf, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s order requiring a personal injury plaintiff to disclose his entire lifetime medical history was overbroad because it was not limited to the medical condition that the plaintiff had put in issue. (85 Cal.App.3d at 557.) Here, Plaintiffs assert that the interrogatory is similarly overbroad because each “Plaintiff never treated with his primary care provider, for the injuries or for the body parts at issue in this case, and Plaintiff does not want others, including Defendants and their counsel, to know which doctors he’s been treating with outside this context. It is private medical information which the law affords him the right to maintain.” (Id. at 5:23–27.) To this extent, “Plaintiff has responded to Form Interrogatories, Series 10.0, attesting that he has not seen prior related injuries, including his ‘regular personal physician,’ for any injuries that are placed at issue in this lawsuit as evidenced in response to Form Interrogatories, Series 6.0.” (Id. at 5:20–23.)

Defendants argue in reply that they are nevertheless “entitled to the information sought as it is proper to seek the identity of plaintiff’s primary care provider regardless of whether there are prior injuries or not, in this personal injury matter, where plaintiff is putting plaintiff’s health at issue. Plaintiff is asserting personal injury and medical care as part of the damages in this case, and as such, has placed plaintiff’s medical history at issue.” (Defs.’ Reply 1:28–2:4.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the subject interrogatory, as written, is overly broad in scope, as it is not reasonably limited to the injuries at issue in this litigation, particularly where Plaintiffs assert in other discovery responses that they were not treated by their primary healthcare provider(s) for the subject injuries. Accordingly, the Court sustains Plaintiffs’ objections thereto and denies Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs’ further responses to Defendants’ Special Interrogatory No. 11.

C.    Sanctions 

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Here, as the Court denies the instant motions, the Court finds it reasonable to impose $200.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendants and/or their counsel.

CONCLUSION

The motions are denied. The Court imposes $200.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendants and/or their counsel.

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  “The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at CHAdeptF51@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 407-2233.