Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV38725, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38725    Hearing Date: December 11, 2024    Dept: 74

John D.F. Doe v. Roe 1

County of Los Angeles’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

            Defendant requests Plaintiff be compelled to respond to Form Interrogatory (FROG) No. 2.5.  FROG No. 2.5 requests Plaintiff “[s]tate: a) your present residence ADDRESS; b) your residence ADDRESSES for the last five years; c) the dates you lived at each ADDRESS.” Plaintiff objects that the request violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy under Code of Civil Procedure 367.3, which protects personally identifying information.

Section 367.3 permits survivors of sexual abuse to proceed using a pseudonym and “exclude or redact from all pleadings and documents filed in the action other identifying characteristics of the protected person.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 367.3(b)(1).) “Identifying characteristics” include Plaintiff’s address, making the address subject to non-disclosure in pleadings and documents “filed in the action.” But Defendant is not seeking leave to disclose Plaintiff’s address in a filing; instead, Defendant is seeking to learn the address through discovery. Plaintiff cites no authority that Plaintiff’s address is protected from discovery, particularly when a protective order exists.

 Individuals have a substantial interest in the privacy of addresses.  (Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 347, 359.)  Even in the case of routinely produced discovery information, “‘the party seeking discovery of private matter must do more than satisfy the [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2017 standard.’ [citations omitted]” (Id.) Defendant seeks Plaintiff’s address in order to allow Defendant (1) to obtain background information on Plaintiff, (2) to seek Plaintiff’s medical records, (3) to identify any witnesses to Plaintiff’s emotional distress, and (4) to conduct sub rosa.

            Weighing Plaintiff’s privacy interest depends on the consequence of disclosure.  First, Plaintiff’s information is already protected by Code of Civil Procedure section 367.3.  Second, Plaintiff does not argue that there are any heightened risks of disclosure.  Third, Defendant has agreed to sign a protective order exceeding what section 367.3 already protects. Given that Plaintiff’s privacy interest is already being protected, and Plaintiff does not show any heightened risk of disclosure, the balance of privacy interests supports compelling a further response.

Sanctions

            Defendant requests $3,112.50 in sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorneys of record, jointly and severally.  Plaintiff’s counsel requests that sanctions be denied because Plaintiff’s counsel acted “out of an abundance of caution.”  (Opp., pp. 6:21-24.)  Despite this fact, Plaintiff’s attorney knew that Code of Civil Procedure section 367.3 protected Plaintiff’s identifiable information from being filed in a pleading or document but established no similar bar against discovery. Therefore, the Court grants sanctions.  Defendant requests 5 hours for attempting to obtain further responses, meeting and conferring, drafting the motion and preparing supporting documents as well as an additional 2.5 hours at a billing rate of $415 per hour.  The Court finds 4.5 hours is a reasonable amount of time and orders only Plaintiff to pay $1,867.50 in attorney’s fees to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 2.5.

Plaintiff shall serve Plaintiffs’ response to without objection within 10 days.

The Court orders Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s counsel $1,867.50 within 30 days.

Defendant shall provide notice.