Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV11617, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11617    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Oscar Perez, by and through his guardian ad litem, Gladis Perez, brings four discovery motions.  Two of the motions seek to compel further responses to requests for production.  The other two seek to compel further responses to special interrogatories.  One set of motions is directed toward defendant James Maldonado; the other towards defendant Music Express, Inc. (Music Express). 

                The discovery seeks information about two main topics: (1) Music Express’s training of its drivers, including Maldonado; and (2) Maldonado’s prior motor vehicle accidents.  This information is relevant to plaintiff’s third cause of action for negligent entrustment and fourth cause of action negligent hiring and retention.  At a minimum, the propounded discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

                Defendants object to the discovery on the grounds that its disclosure violates Maldonado’s right to privacy.  The court disagrees.  With one exception, under the test set forth in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, the court overrules this objection.

                Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 13 requires defendants to produce, “YOUR entire employment file, personnel file, and driver file.”  This request is much too broad.  It casts a net so wide that it includes irrelevant and highly confidential information, including plaintiff’s social security number, health care issues, and other personnel issues entirely unrelated to driving.  Defendants’ objections to these requests are sustained.

                Plaintiff contends that defendants’ responses to the disputed special interrogatories are evasive because they do not provide the more detailed information called for by the questions.   To most of the special interrogatories at issue, defendants responded: “[I]n 2016, Maldonado was involved in a minor rear-end accident, and also in 2016, Maldonado was side-swiped by a bus while stationary at LAX resulting in damage to the vehicle driver’s door.”   The court agrees with plaintiff that this response is insufficient.

                For example, Special Interrogatory 33 asks: “As to each and every PRIOR INCIDENT in which YOU were involved while working for MUSIC EXPRESS INC. from the time you were first hired through the time of the INCIDENT, state the location of the incident.”  Defendants do not state the location of the “minor rear-end accident” that occurred in 2016.

                Defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s requests for production are not code compliant.  (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, 2030.220, 2031.230.)  For example, in response to Request for Production No. 20, defendants state: “Responding party will produce the Music Express Chauffeur Training manual.”  The code, however, requires that a statement of compliance affirm that “all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party” will be produced.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

                Plaintiff’s motions to compel defendants Maldonado and Music Express to provide further responses to requests for production are granted with respect to Requests for Production Nos. 16, 20, and 21, and denied with respect to Request No. 13.

                Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Maldanado to provide further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 25, 32-35, and 39 is granted.

                Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Music Express to provide further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 23, 30-33, and 37 is granted.