Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV01268, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV01268    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS

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: 

Warawut Pongpradit (Plaintiff-Pongpradit) and Arie Waisbard (collectively Plaintiffs) bring this action against Mariane Mufta Bilolo (Defendant). Plaintiffs allege they were injured by virtue of Defendant’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle in January of 2021.

Before the Court is a motion to compel Plaintiff-Pongpradit to answer certain deposition questions posed on September 28, 2023. At the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel instructed Plaintiff not to answer certain question on grounds that they were violative of his right to privacy. Defendant now seeks to compel further answers to these questions, arguing the refusal to answer was improper. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

C.C.P. § 2025.480 permits a party to seek a motion to compel deposition answers where a deponent fails to answer any question or produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control. The Court shall order the production or answer be given if it determines that the matter sought is subject to discovery. (C.C.P. § 2025.480 (i).) The moving party is required to lodge a certified copy of the deposition transcript portions relevant to the motion. (C.C.P. § 2025.480(h).)

A motion made pursuant to C.C.P.§ 2025.480 must be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition. (C.C.P.§ 2025.480 (b).) “If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.” (C.C.P. § 2025.480(i).)

II.                 MERITS

Questions Not Answered

Defendant seeks answers to the following deposition questions:

1.      [W]hat was your wife’s name? (Depo. p. 14: 4-25.)

a.       Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy.

2.      When did that marriage end? (Depo. p. 15: 2-4.)

a.       Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy.

3.      Who is your immediate supervisor at Delta Airlines? (Depo. p. 19-20.)

a.       Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy.

4.      Why did you go to Thailand in December 2022 for three weeks? (Depo. p. 63: 13-25.)

a.       Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy.

5.      Where did you fly from? (Depo. p. 64:8 through 65:1-8.)

a.       Instructed not to answer as an invasion of privacy.

Analysis

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.)

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.) Generally, in evaluating a discovery dispute which involves a privacy claim the trial court should apply the framework set forth in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1.

The California Supreme Court, in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, reiterated that the Hill analysis is to be applied in determining the scope of discovery of private information, and rejected in part some of the authority cited in the opposition papers, holding that the burden to establish a privacy interest remains initially with the party asserting such an interest. (Williams supra, 3 Cal.5th 531 at 552.) The Supreme Court rejected case law which requires a party seeking discovery of private information to establish a compelling interest, placing the initial burden on the party asserting a privacy objection to establish the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion. (Id. at 557.)

Here, Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) Further, pursuant to Williams, Plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a compelling privacy interest. As Plaintiff has rendered no opposition, he has not carried his burden.

Accordingly, the motion to compel answers is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against an unsuccessful moving or opposing party unless they acted with substantial justification or imposition of sanctions would be unjust. (C.C.P. § 2025.480 (j).) Additionally, it is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file an opposition. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) 

As such, the Court awards sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $1,425. This amount reflects 7 hours of attorney work at a rate of $195 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee.  The Court declines to impose court reporter fees. (Enge Decl. ¶ 20.).  Since Plaintiff has not filed an opposition the Court declines to impose sanctions of $487.50.   Sanctions are against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel jointly and severally.

--- 

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 

Mariane Mufta Bilolo’s Motion to Compel Deposition Answers came on regularly for hearing on March 22, 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 TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ANSWERS IS GRANTED. 

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,425.00

SANCTIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: March 22, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles