Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00823, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00823    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, MOTION TO QUASH, & MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Rebecca Brudzynski (Plaintiff) brings this action against Peoples Action Power (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to racial discrimination while she was an employee of Defendant in 2020. Plaintiff is in this matter in pro per.

Before the court are five motions, each brought by Plaintiff. These motions are as follows, in order by date of filing:

1.      Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Set Two (Filed Dec. 4, 2023).

2.      Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production Set Two and Three (Filed Dec. 4, 2021.)

3.      Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas (Filed Dec. 11, 2023.)

4.      Motion to Compel Further Request for Production Set Two and Three (Filed Dec. 21, 2021.)

5.      Motion to Join Necessary part on a Second Amended Complaint (Filed Dec. 26, 2023.)  

The Court notes that Nos. 2 & 4 on this list appear duplicative. This will be addressed in the Court’s substantive analysis. Defendant opposes each motion, while Plaintiff has rendered no reply.

ANALYSIS: 

Motion to Join Necessary Parties

Plaintiff “Motion to Join Necessary Parties” seeks to join Adam Kruggel, People’s Action Institute, and People’s Action Institute as necessary parties by filing a Second Amended Complaint.  

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not stated the appropriate grounds for this motion. Plaintiff’s declaration states that the basis for her motion is California Rules of Court (C.R.C.) Rule 3.110(e). C.R.C Rule 3.110(e) refers to the modification of time to serve a defendant named in an action. This rule has no bearing on the motion Plaintiff seeks to bring and does not provide authority for her to make such a motion.

Instead, Plaintiff’s motion is essentially one for leave to amend her First Amended Complaint (FAC) to add these parties as defendants. The requirements for such a motion are governed by C.R.C. Rule 3.1324. As will be discussed below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s has not made the statutory showings required to grant leave to amend.

A party requesting leave to amend must submit a motion that includes: (1) a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings; (2) a statement of which allegations would be deleted by the amendment, and where they are located in the previous pleading; and (3) a statement of what allegations would be added by the amendment, and where they are located in the proposed pleading.¿ (C.R.C. Rule 3.1324(a).) The motion should also include a declaration stating: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) why the request was not made earlier.¿ (Id. at Rule 3.1324(b).)

Here, Plaintiff has failed to attach a proposed amended complaint as required by C.R.C. Rule 3.1324(a)(1). Further, Plaintiff’s declaration does not explain the effect of adding these parties nor why the addition of any of these parties is in fact necessary. Plaintiff has brought this action against People’s Action Power, and her motion does not endeavor to explain why the current defendant is inadequate. To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion claims these proposed parties are alter-egos or agents of People’s Action Power, such claims must be supported by evidentiary showings to that effect. Plaintiff’s motion is unaccompanied by any evidence as to the corporate or agency status of the proposed parties absent her own declaration that she believes Adam Kruggel controls all these entities.

In short, Plaintiff’s motion contains almost none of the information required by C.R.C. Rule 3.1324(a)-(b) which governs motions for leave to amend.

Accordingly, this motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Motion to Quash

Plaintiff moves to quash two Deposition Subpoenas served on Soultenders, Inc. (Soultenders) and Susan Wooton Reyes (Reyes). These deposition subpoenas seek disclosure of Plaintiff’s mental health records from 2020 to present. (Tang Decl. ¶ 7.) Soultenders and Reyes were both identified as mental health providers by Plaintiff in response to Defendant’s Interrogatories. (Tang Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant states they issued the subpoenas because Plaintiff specifically identified emotional injury attributable to the incident in this case. (Tang Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff states two separate grounds upon which the subpoenas must be quashed. First, Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are violative of her right to privacy. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive, as Plaintiff has placed her mental health at issue in this case.

Under Article I § 1 of the California Constitution, California recognizes a constitutional right to privacy. This right “protects an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” (Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 171.) Under California law, even highly relevant, nonprivileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person’s inalienable right to privacy. (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-56.) The right to privacy protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion. (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370.) 

Bringing a suit that puts one's medical or mental condition at issue can waive one's privacy rights. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.) “[B]y asserting a causal link between her mental distress and defendants’ conduct, plaintiff implicitly claims it was not caused by a preexisting mental condition, thereby raising the question of alternative sources for the distress. We thus conclude that her mental state is in controversy.” (Vinson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at 840.)

Here, Plaintiff is directly asserting that she was caused emotional distress by the events alleged in her First Amended Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has waived the privacy interest in her mental health records as they are directly relevant to her claims against Defendant.

Plaintiff also appears to argue that the subpoenas are overbroad. Plaintiff does not substantively brief this argument, only simply stating that the requests are overboard and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

C.C.P. § 2020.410(a) states that a deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or reasonably particularizing each category of item and shall specify the form in which any electronically stored information is to be produced if a particular form is desired. The copies of the subpoenas are not attached to Plaintiff’s motion but are attached to Defendant’s opposition. From the Court’s review of the subpoenas, it appears they are compliant with C.C.P. § 2020.410(a). Plaintiff submits no substantive argument as to how the subpoenas are non-compliant.

The Court finds that the contention that the subpoenas are overbroad is unsupported. Given that Plaintiff’s mental state and damages are at issue, Defendant is allowed to inquire into the basis for such claims in order to defend itself in this litigation.

Accordingly, the motion to quash the deposition subpoenas is DENIED.  However, given the sensitive nature of what is being requested, the Court does believe that compliance should be contingent upon the Defendant agreeing to a protective order for the records.

Motion to Compel Further Responses

Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents

The Court is unable to ascertain the basis for the two motions to compel further responses which are on its calendar for February 2, 2024. It appears that Plaintiff has reserved two separate hearings for her Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production (RFPD) Sets Two and Three. It also appears that Plaintiff has filed two separate motions under this same title. One of these motions was filed on December 4, 2023 and the other was filed December 21, 2023. Both of these motions seek the exact relief, that Defendant be compelled to provide further reply to Plaintiff’s RFPD Sets Two and Three, which were served on November 1, 2023. (Brudzynski Decl. ¶ 2.) These RFPD sets were intended to replace RFPD Set One which contained a statutorily impermissible amount of requests.

Brudzynski’s declaration does not state when responses were received to RFPD Set Two and Three. Her December 4, 2023, motion includes a separate statement which has responses from Defendant, but it is unclear from where these responses came. This is critically important because Brudzynski argues in her December 21, 2023, motion that Defendant served further responses to the RFPD on December 5, 2023. The serving of further responses on December 5, 2023, after the filing of the first motion, suggests that the December 4, 2023 motion is moot.

Plaintiff could still seek to compel further responses to the RFPD, but she would need to include the December 5, 2023 responses in such a motion and explain why those responses remain insufficient. Plaintiff submitted no separate statement with her December 21, 2023 motion and did not attach the December 5 responses. Instead, Plaintiff simply states the December 5 responses remain insufficient. (Dec. 21 Mot. p. 2, ¶ 2.)

In short, it appears that Defendant served additional responses to the RFPD on December 5, 2023 which would have mooted the December 4, 2023 motion. Plaintiff subsequently filed another motion to compel further responses on December 21, 2023 that is not code compliant.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RFPD Sets Two and Three is DENIED without prejudice.

Motion To Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to her Special Interrogatories Set Two.

As with her RFPD, Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Set One also exceeded the number allowed by statute. (Brudzynski Decl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff agreed to submit shorter interrogatories and propounded her Special Interrogatories Set Two on November 1, 2023. (Brudzynski Decl. ¶ 2.) It appears from Plaintiff’s motion that she contends she never received responses to her Special interrogatories Set Two. (SPROG Mot. p. 2, ¶ 2.) However, Plaintiff then states that she received responses to Special Interrogatories Set One at some point. (Id.)

The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s separate statement submitted in conjunction with her motion is not code compliant. C.R.C. Rule 3.1345(c) requires that a separate statement contain the text of each response received. Plaintiff’s separate statement contains no responses from Defendant at all and they are not attached as an exhibit.

It is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff has or has not received responses to her Special Interrogatories Set Two. If Plaintiff has not received responses, then she is making her motion on the wrong grounds, as she should be seeking to compel initial production rather than further production. If Plaintiff has received responses, her motion is not code compliant for failure to include those responses in her separate statement. In either case, the motion before the Court is defective.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Set Two is DENIED without prejudice.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Rebecca Brudzynski’s Motion to for leave to amend, motion to quash, & motions to compel further responses came on regularly for hearing on February 2, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

THE MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS IS DENIED SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET TWO IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER REPSONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION SETS TWO AND THREE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: February 2, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles