Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: SC128027, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC128027    Hearing Date: November 14, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Doe, et al. v. Olson, Case No. SC128027

Hearing Date November 14, 2023

Doe Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiffs allege defendants, at the behest of HOA president defendant Olson, harassed and spied on Jane Doe and her guests/invitees. May Doe alleges one of the defendants took photos of her changing clothes. On September 6, 2023 defendants served eighty-four special interrogatories and sixty-nine requests for production of documents on plaintiffs. The special interrogatories include a declaration of necessity under Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.050.

Does argue the number of special interrogatories is excessive, burdensome and oppressive. Does argue a protective order “limiting the identifying information requested in Defendants’ discovery[,]” is necessary to ensure plaintiffs’ safety. Id. pg. 6.

The first amended complaint includes a fifty-page narrative of facts, alleging numerous instances of wrongdoing by defendants dating back to 2005. See FAC pgs. 1-50. These allegations are made in support of thirty-three causes of action, each based on a legal theory requiring separate analysis. Id. pg. 2; pgs. 50-85. Does alleged an extensive case, and defendants are entitled to conduct extensive discovery to answer it. Against this background, eighty-four special interrogatories are not excessive.

Finally, the court takes note of defendants’ exhibit E, an email from plaintiffs’ counsel Gloria Martinez-Senftner to defendants’ counsel. In the message, Martinez-Senftner states “[i]n view of the 33 causes of action, the discovery requests are not unwarranted.” Id. This admission bolsters the court’s decision, but the decision would be the same, even absent this email. DENIED.