Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Zarate v. Moody al, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, filed on 5/17/22 by Ms. Moody (“Moody”) as to certain responses provided by Ms.  Zarate (“Zarate”), is GRANTED.   

The evidence presented shows that Ms. Moody served Special Interrogatories, Set Two (the “SROGs”) on 2/11/22. (Varjian Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. A.) Ms. Zarate responded on 3/15/22, with only objections for the four SROGs at issue – Nos. 25-28. (Id. at ¶ 9, Ex. B.) 

On a motion to compel further responses for interrogatories, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer.  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245, 255.)  Ms. Zarate has not met that burden here.

The information requested is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the dispute, as Ms. Moody asserts that it is needed to allow for further discovery into records of cell phone usage at the time of the accident. Ms. Moody is not prevented from seeking such discovery merely because Ms. Zarate has asserted that it was not in use at the time. Nor is any SROG at issue sufficiently vague or ambiguous to justify a refusal to respond.

However, some privacy rights are implicated here. The Court must thus balance the privacy interests at stake with any legitimate and important countervailing interest disclosure would serve. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552; Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.) 

Here, as the SROGs at issue seek only identifying information as to what phone was in Ms. Zarate’s possession at the time, rather than any content, the privacy interests at stake are relatively modest.  In response, Ms. Moody has shown a legitimate and important countervailing interest that disclosure would serve here, to obtain information not otherwise available to her to issue a third-party subpoena for records that may be directly relevant to this dispute. And while an alternative might have been to request limited relevant records from Ms. Zarate, Ms. Zarate has asserted that she cannot obtain them. (Varjian Decl., ¶¶ 14-15, and Ex. D.)  On balance, the privacy interest here must thus yield to allow that discovery.  Although greater privacy issues may well arise in connection with the contemplated subpoena, that is not presently before the Court and may be resolved by the redaction of irrelevant information.

The Motion is therefore GRANTED.  Ms. Zarate is to provide verified supplemental responses to SROGs 25-28 within 15 days after service of notice of this ruling.

Counsel for moving party to give notice.