Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV46135, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46135    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

Date:              8/4/22 (8:30 AM)                                                   

Case:             Lucio Quicho v. Northridge Hospital Medical Center (20STCV46135)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Lucio Quicho’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Lucio Quicho moves to compel further responses from defendant Dignity Health to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 22-26. These interrogatories are pertinent to plaintiff’s allegations that for more than 30 years, defendant had a custom and practice of misrepresenting to tort victims the lien priorities set forth in Civil Code § 3045.1 et seq. (FAC ¶ 29.)

Plaintiff alleges that he lost access to his settlement funds based on defendant’s demand for more than the amount it is entitled to under Civil Code § 3045.4. (FAC ¶¶ 26, 28.) Accordingly, plaintiff has standing to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of others who were injured by the same unfair business practices alleged by plaintiff. (Prayer for Relief at 7:26-27; Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17204.)

The interrogatories are designed to ascertain the extent that defendant asserted liens in amounts exceeding the amounts prescribed by Civil Code § 3045.1 et seq.  From this discovery, plaintiff may obtain information that the Court can use to fashion appropriate injunctive relief. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203; Committee On Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 210 [“The Legislature apparently intended to permit courts to enjoin ongoing wrongful business conduct in whatever context such activity might occur”].) Even if a singular act is sufficient to state a cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law, this does not prevent plaintiff from ascertaining the extent of the violations of Civil Code § 3045.1 et seq. and attempting to obtain injunctive relief that addresses the violations.

Defendant objects based on the burden it will bear to respond to the interrogatories, including having to review correspondences to liability insurance companies and attorneys. (Becerra Decl. ¶¶ 3-8.) Even though the supporting declaration was submitted by defense counsel’s Third Party Liability Manager, as opposed to authorized representative employed by defendant, defendant’s argument is well taken on the face of the requests. Even if the parties did not meet and confer about the burden, defendant asserted an objection based on burden for each of the interrogatories at issue. (Jones Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. B at 8-10.) Defendant also noted in a meet and confer correspondence that plaintiff seeks six years of information regarding defendant’s prior liens. (Jones Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. F.) Accordingly, defendant may maintain its objections based on burden.

Plaintiff does not explain why six years of information is necessary. Based on plaintiff’s allegation that the lien was not created until December 9, 2019 (FAC ¶ 20), further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 22-26 shall be limited to January 1, 2019 to the present. This time period is adequate for plaintiff to ascertain the scope of any violation of Civil Code § 3045.1 et seq. on the part of defendant. As to any assertion that the limited time period still poses an undue burden on defendant, “there is no rule which holds that proper discovery is limited to interrogatories which may be answered without effort or loss of time.” (Sigerseth v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427, 433.) 

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Within 30 days hereof, defendant Dignity Health is ordered to serve further verified responses, without objection, to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 22-26 based on a period from January 1, 2019 to the present. Considering that the motion is not wholly denied or granted, all requests for sanctions are DENIED.