Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV42411, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 21STCV42411    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiffs Gerald Meehan and Lois Meehan’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories by: (1) Kelly Seidlitz, and (2) Annette Seidlitz

            Plaintiffs Gerald Meehan and Lois Meehan move to compel defendant Kelly Seidlitz and defendant Annette Seidlitz to serve further responses to special interrogatories, set one, Nos. 1-5, 8, and 9.

Order Compelling Further Responses

A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories when an answer “is evasive or incomplete” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1), “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate” (§ 2030.300(a)(2)), or an objection “is without merit or too general” (§ 2030.300(a)(3)).

Kelly Seidlitz and Annette Seidlitz responded with meritless objections.  A party waives objections if he or she fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories.  (CCP § 2030.290(a).)  Kelly and Annette Seidlitz failed to timely respond.  Plaintiffs served the special interrogatories on July 21, 2022, by mail.  (S. Meehan Decls., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)  Responses were therefore due on August 25, 2022.  Defendants served no responses until October 4, 2022.  (Id., ¶ 6, Ex. 3.)  Defendants therefore waived their objections to the interrogatories.

Even if the objections had not been waived, they are meritless.  “Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.”  (CCP § 2017.010.)  Special interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8, and 9 each ask defendants to identify people with knowledge of the facts underlying plaintiffs’ complaint and defendants’ answer. 

Defendants objected that the questions violate the privacy of people who resided at the property operated by Gratitude Recovery, LLC.  “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.)  Assuming defendants show a protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy, the threatened intrusion is not serious.  Any intrusion on the third parties’ privacy rights can be mitigated by a stipulated protective order or other agreement not to publicly disclose their personal information.

Defendants also objected that the information “is protected by CFR 42 Subchapter A, Part 2.”  Defendants fail to establish that those regulations apply.  “[T]he regulations in this part impose restrictions upon the disclosure and use of substance use disorder patient records which are maintained in connection with the performance of any part 2 program.”  (42 C.F.R. § 2.2.)  “Part 2 program means a federally assisted program (federally assisted as defined in § 2.12(b) and program as defined in this section).”  (42 C.F.R. § 2.11.)  Defendants do not show the residents or customers of Gratitude Recovery, LLC are patients in a federally assisted program covered by these regulations. 

Defendants Kelly Seidlitz’s and Annette Seidlitz’s objections to special interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8, and 9 are overruled.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs move for $4,460 in sanctions against Kelly Seidlitz and against Annette Seidlitz.  The court cannot impose sanctions under these circumstances.  The recent case City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 598-502 held that imposing sanctions under the Discovery Act requires an independent authorizing statute, such as those governing each discovery method. 

The relevant authorizing statute is Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), which provides, “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further 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.”  Defendants did not oppose these motions.  They cannot be sanctioned under section 2030.300, subdivision (d).

Disposition

Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are denied.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Kelly Seidlitz to serve further responses to special interrogatories is granted.  Defendant Kelly Seidlitz is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to special interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8, and 9 within 30 days.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Annette Seidlitz to serve further responses to special interrogatories is granted.  Defendant Annette Seidlitz is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to special interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8, and 9 within 30 days.