Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV19694, Date: 2022-07-27 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 27, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:   

Defendants George Macris and Catherine Macris’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories

            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.