Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV00830, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV00830    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 7/17/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to compel third-party witness, Sergio Ortiz-Vera of K-VAC Environmental Services, to attend a further deposition and answer the questions that he was instructed not to answer on privacy grounds, and to impose monetary sanctions against Sergio Ortiz-Vera’s employer, K-VAC Environmental Services, and its counsel in the amount of $4,629.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged personal injuries that Plaintiffs sustained while working at Sewage Lift Station (“Lift Station”) owned and operated by Defendants.

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiffs Michael Buntain and Saul Castro (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint against Defendants County of Los Angeles, City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (“SCVWA”), Newhall County Water District, and Does 1 to 50, alleging (1) General Negligence, and (2) Dangerous Condition of Public Property.   On May 1, 2023, SCVWA filed its Answer to the Complaint. Subsequently, on August 28, 2024, Plaintiffs requested to dismiss Defendants County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita, which was entered by the Clerk on the same day.

On December 11, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Santa Clarita filed its Cross-Complaint against SCVWA, alleging (1) Implied Equitable Indemnity, (2) Contribution/Apportionment, and (3) Declaratory Relief. Subsequently, SCVWA answered to this Cross-Complaint on January 10, 2024.

On February 23, 2024, Defendant/Cross-Complainant County of Los Angeles filed its Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 to 50.

On June 11, 2024, SCVWA filed its First Amended Cross-Complaint against Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant City to Santa Clarita and Pumpman, LLC (“Pumpman”), alleging (1) Implied Equitable Indemnity, (2) Contribution/Apportionment, (3) Breach of Contract, (4) Express Indemnity, and (5) Declaratory Relief. Subsequently, Cross-Defendant Pumpman filed its Answer to this Cross-Complaint on August 13, 2024.

On July 17, 2024, SCVWA filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Answers to Deposition Questions by third-party deponent, Sergio Ortiz-Vera (“Deponent”) of K-VAC Environmental Services (“K-VAC”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (a).) 

Counsel should not instruct clients not to answer the question unless the purpose is to protect privileged information. (See Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1014.) 

A.    Motion to Compel Further Answers to Deposition Questions

SCVWA presents that during the first deposition on May 10, 2024, counsel for Deponent’s employer K-VAC, Aldo Flores (“FLORES”), instructed Deponent not to answer certain questions on privacy grounds. (Mot. at p. 3, Jensen Decl. ¶ 4.)

SCVWA seeks to compel the answer to deposition questions. It reads in relevant part:

(a)   Page 12, Lines 12 – 20

Q. Okay. When you first started to work at K-Vac, did you receive any type of training in injury prevention?

MR. FLORES:  Objection. Right of privacy on behalf of the witness and on behalf of K-Vac Environmental. ¶ I’ll instruct the witness not to speak on what training he received or did not receive at his place of employment.

(b)   Page 14, Lines 21 – 24

Q. Okay. When you first started working with K-Vac, did you review any manuals or written guidelines related to injury prevention?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(c)   Page 15, Lines 2 – 4

Q. Okay. When was the last time you received any training in injury prevention through K-Vac?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(d)   Page 15, Lines 6 – 9

Q. Mr. Ortiz-Vera, when was last time that you reviewed any written materials whether hard copy or online related to injury prevention?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(e)   Page 15, Lines 13 – 16

[Q.] Did any of your injury prevention training include discussions related to personal protective equipment?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(f)    Page 15, Lines 24 – Page 16, Lines 3

Q. Did any of your injury prevention training include discussions regarding the various types of personal protection equipment?

MR. FLORES: Same objection. Also assumes facts.

(g)   Page 16, Lines 20 – 23

Q. Did your injury prevention training address at any time when hearing protection was recommended to be worn?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(h)   Page 15, Line 16 – Page 17, Lines 3

Q. Okay. Did any of the injury prevention training that you received at K-Vac involve discussions about when hearing protection had to be worn?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(i)     Page 17, Lines 9 – 11

Q. Okay. When you started with K-Vac, did K-Vac supply you with personal protective equipment?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(j)     Page 17, Lines 13 – 16

Q. At any time while you've been working with K-Vac, did K-Vac provide you with any updated or additional personal protective equipment?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(k)   Page 19, Lines 18 – 23

Q. Well, the question is has he ever been advised independent of reading it that wearing hearing protection in all areas having high noise exposure is part of the -- is necessary on jobs such as the instant job?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(l)     Page 20, Lines 14 – 16

Q. Okay. Has anyone advised you that high noise exposure could come from heavy machinery?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(m)  Page 21, Lines 6 – 15

Q. Okay. Does K-Vac injury prevention policies include the requirement that personnel from K-Vac conduct a hazard assessment on any project involving K-Vac?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

MR. JENSEN: Okay. And just for the record, I do have other questions to ask in regard to this document; however, given the instruction, I'm not going to go into it. I'll reserve it for down the road once we get past this issue.

(n)   Page 22, Lines 3 – 5

Q. Okay. Have you ever performed a confined space entry yourself?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(o)   Page 22, Lines 11 – 13

Q. Okay. And while you were with K-Vac, did you ever perform a confined space entry?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(p)   Page 23, Lines 14 – 16

Q. Okay. Have you ever received any training regarding the safety requirements from California OSHA?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(q)   Page 32, Lines 1 – 2

[Q.] [...] exposure?

MR. FLORES: Same objection.

(Jensen Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. “2.”)

1)      Objections Based on Privacy

Case law has established that several areas of an individual’s life are entitled to privacy, among them are privacy in one’s financial records, medical records, and employment records. This privacy interest is not absolute and must sometimes yield if a balancing of interests so required. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 sets forth the process. First, a legally protected privacy right must be identified, in which the party has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the threatened invasion of which is serious rather than trivial. If these facts exist, courts must balance the invasion of that privacy with the competing interests. “Privacy concerns are not absolute; they must be balanced against other important interests. . . .¿ Invasion of a privacy interest is not a violation of the state constitutional right to privacy if the invasion is justified by a competing interest. Legitimate interests derive from the legally authorized and socially beneficial activities of government and private entities.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 37-38.)

Here, SCVWA argues that none of the questions posed to Deponent were directed toward a recognized Zone of Privacy, nor were they related in any manner to a trade secret or other proprietary information. (Mot. at p. 5.)

Furthermore, SCVWA argues that a balancing test would also favor its position as the questions are related to the safety protocol of staff worked on the same project as Plaintiffs and who were subject to the same and similar safety hazards. (Mot. at p. 6.)

The Court notes that Plaintiffs allege they sustained injuries while working at the Lift Station on April 28, 2022 – as they were standing near the wet well of the Lift Station and getting ready to make a confined space entry into the wet well, an explosion occurred from inside the wet well, hitting and throwing Plaintiffs, causing their injuries. (Compl. ¶ 8.) In response, SCVWA filed its first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) against Pumpman, asserting that Plaintiffs violated industry-standard safety protocol for all persons involved in the Lift Station operations. ((SCVWA’s FACC ¶ 25.) SCVWA also contends that it expects to establish that Pumpman violated the protocol by failing to ensure that its personnel were properly trained and supervised. (Mot. at p. 6.)

Given the nature of the allegations, the Court finds that evidence pertaining to standard safety training, practices, and supervision protocol for personnel who performed work at the Lift Station is highly relevant to the case.

 Consequently, the Court finds SCVWA’s argument persuasive that Deponent’s counsel objections based on privacy were not substantially justified. Additionally, Deponent’s failure to file an Opposition to the Motion effectively waives any objections to the issues raised.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

B.     Monetary Sanctions

“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 an answer or production, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (j).) Additionally, California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(A) further provides, “The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Underlines added.)

Given that the Court has granted the Motion, it finds that the mandatory monetary sanctions are applicable.

Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the work in preparing the Motion is $1,950.00, calculated at a reasonable hourly rate of $190.00 for 5 hours reasonably spent, in addition to $1,000.00 for reasonable court reporter fees.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency’s Motion to Compel Further Answers to Deposition Questions is GRANTED, consistent with the above analysis.

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Third-party deponent Sergio Ortiz-Vera’s employer, K-VAC Environmental Services, and its counsel during the May 10, 2024 deposition, Aldo Flores, are ordered to jointly and severally pay $1,950.00 to Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency’s counsel within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.