Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV19694, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling
Please contact Department 52 at SMCDEPT52@lacourt.org and send a copy of the email to all parties, to advise the courtroom staff if parties are submitting on the court’s tentative ruling.
Please provide the Case Name, Case Number, and party.
Case Number: 21STCV19694 Hearing Date: July 26, 2022 Dept: 52
Tentative Ruling:
Defendants
George Macris and Catherine Macris move to compel plaintiff Luis Calderon to
provide further responses to form and special interrogatories. A party propounding interrogatories may move
to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n
exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is
unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or
“[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a).)
Form Interrogatories
Defendants
move to compel further responses to form interrogatories Nos. 6.3, 6.4, 6.5,
6.7, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 11.1, 11.2, and 17.1 (regarding requests for admission
Nos. 1-6 and 8). Plaintiff only objected
and gave no substantive responses. Plaintiff’s
objections are meritless.
Plaintiff objected that the term
“incident” was vague and ambiguous. Defendants
defined that term as “the alleged violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act as
alleged in the complaint.” Plaintiff
objected that the complaint “contains allegations concerning denial of access
on two separate dates.” The complaint
alleges plaintiff visited defendants’ property “in February 2021 and March
2021.” (Comp., ¶ 21.) Defendant’s definition of “incident” is not
vague or ambiguous. It includes both
visits. Plaintiff must answer about both.
Plaintiff also objected based on
his right to privacy. “The party
asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest,
an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances,
and a threatened intrusion that is serious.”
(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) If the objecting party shows all three
elements, then the court must balance the need for disclosure against the right
to privacy. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff
has a constitutional right to privacy but has no objectively reasonable
expectation of privacy in these circumstances.
The form interrogatories ask various questions about his allegations,
the underlying facts, his disability or disabilities, and his damages. He sued defendants for violating the Unruh
Civil Rights Act based on his disability.
These questions are relevant to his allegations and defendants’
potential defenses. Plaintiff has no
reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the basis the lawsuit he brought.
Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
Special Interrogatories
Defendants move to compel further
responses to special interrogatories Nos. 19, 21, 22, 25, and 26. Plaintiff only objected and gave no
substantive responses. Plaintiff’s
objections are meritless.
Again, plaintiff objected based on
his right to privacy. As with the form
interrogatories, he has no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in
these circumstances. Nos. 1-6 and 25-26 ask
about plaintiff’s contact information, occupation, and time of residing at two
specific addresses. Nos. 7, 10-15 and 19
ask about the circumstances of his visiting defendants’ property or any
potential future visits. Nos. 8-9 ask
about communications regarding those visits.
Nos. 16-18 and 21-22 ask about his contentions in this action and to
identify supporting facts and documents.
The questions concern plaintiff’s allegations and defendants’ potential
defenses. Plaintiff has no reasonable
expectation of privacy regarding the basis the lawsuit he brought.
Plaintiff
also shows no serious intrusion. These
interrogatories do not ask for any sensitive information. They do not ask for detailed information
about his disability, medical history, or medical treatment.
Plaintiff
objected that the interrogatories are not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. These
interrogatories may lead to discovering admissible evidence. They may provide information identifying
witnesses, evidence undermining plaintiff’s allegations, or evidence supporting
defendants’ defenses.
Plaintiff
also objected that several interrogatories were vague or ambiguous. The questions are clear enough to be readily
understood.
Finally,
plaintiff objected based on undue burden.
Objections for undue burden require
“evidence showing the quantum of work required” to respond to the discovery
request. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56
Cal.2d 407, 417.) Plaintiff did
not provide such evidence. These
interrogatories do not impose a serious burden on him.
Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled.
Sanctions
Defendants
move for $3,168.51 in sanctions on each motion.
“Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection
to discovery” is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary
sanctions. (CCP § 2023.010(e).) Plaintiff was not substantially justified in
making numerous meritless objections.
Defendants
request sanctions for the $68.51 filing fees and $500 hourly in attorney fees for
6.2 hours on each motion. The motions
were relatively straightforward and somewhat duplicative. The court finds that the reasonable attorney
fees incurred were $500 hourly for 4.0 hours on each motion.
Disposition
Defendants George Macris and Catherine Macris’ motion to compel
further responses to form interrogatories is granted.
Plaintiff Luis Calderon is ordered to provide further verified
responses without objections to form interrogatories Nos. 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7,
10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 11.1, 11.2, and 17.1 (regarding requests for admission Nos.
1-6, 8) within 20 days.
Plaintiff Luis Calderon is ordered to pay defendants
George Macris and Catherine Macris $2,068.51 in monetary sanctions within 20
days.
Defendants George Macris and Catherine Macris’ motion to compel
further responses to special interrogatories is granted.
Plaintiff Luis Calderon is ordered to provide further
verified responses without objections to special interrogatories Nos. 1-19, 21,
22, 25, and 26 within 20 days.
Plaintiff Luis Calderon is ordered to pay defendants
George Macris and Catherine Macris $2,068.51 in monetary sanctions within 20
days.