Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV02525, Date: 2024-07-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV02525 Hearing Date: July 5, 2024 Dept: A
LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
NORTH
CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK
DEPARTMENT
A
TENTATIVE
RULING
JULY 5, 2024
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case # 23BBCV02525
|
MP: |
Martha & Rigoberto Ayala (Defendants) |
|
RP: |
Jose Hernandez (Plaintiff) |
The Court is not
requesting oral argument on this matter. The Court is guided by
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear
is requested. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling,
no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify 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 argument is received.
Notice may be given
either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.
ALLEGATIONS:
Jose Hernandez
(Plaintiff) brings this action against Martha & Rigoberto Ayala
(Defendants) related to an April 29, 2022 motor vehicle incident. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants were negligently operating their vehicle and caused a
collision which subsequently injured Plaintiff.
Before the Court is a
motion to compel further responses to discovery demands brought by Defendants.
Defendants seek an order compelling Plaintiff’s further responses to their
Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD) Nos. 17 and 18. Plaintiff
opposes the motion and Defendants reply.
ANALYSIS:
I.
LEGAL
STANDARD
A motion
to compel further responses to RFPD may be brought based on: (1) incomplete
statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of
inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.
(C.C.P. § 2031.310(c).)
A motion
to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause
justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See C.C.P. §
2031.310(b)(1).) If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for
production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland
v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)
II.
MERITS
RFPD
The
requests to which Defendants seek further responses are as follows:
·
“All documents that reflect text messages to and from the
cell phone that was in Plaintiff’s possession at the time of the incident from
fifteen minutes prior to the incident through one hour after the incident.”
(RFPD No. 17.)
·
“A copy of Plaintiff’s cellular phone bill reflecting
fifteen minutes prior to the incident though one hour after the incident.”
(RFPD No. 18.)
Meet and Confer
The
Court first addresses the parties’ arguments as concerns their meet and confer
efforts. C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(2) requires that a motion to compel further
responses to RFPD include a meet and confer declaration pursuant C.C.P. §
2016.040. C.C.P. § 2016.040 in turn requires the parties to make a reasonable
and good faith attempt at an informal resolution prior to bringing their
motion. Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to meet and confer in good
faith because they repeatedly failed to provide “good cause” for further
production. The Court does not construe the disagreement over whether good
cause existed as a lack of good faith. If this was the case nearly every
discovery motion could be denied for a lack of good faith. Defendants
demonstrated that they reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel and stated the
reasons they believed the replies to be insufficient. This is evidence of a
good faith meet and confer effort. That Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’
reasoning is not evidence of bad faith.
Discussion
Plaintiff argues that
Defendants have not demonstrated good cause for further production. Plaintiff maintains
that because neither party has claimed he was on his cell phone, there is no
good cause to compel him to produce his cell phone records.
The Court finds
Plaintiff’s argument unpersuasive. It appears that Plaintiff contends Defendants
must have included Plaintiff’s distracted driving as a defense in Defendants’
responsive pleading to seek discovery of his phone records. Plaintiff cites to
no authority, nor is the Court aware of any, that a claim must be present in a
responsive pleading to establish good cause in a discovery motion.
Discovery is intended
to obtain information that may lead to admissible evidence at trial. CCP §2017.010. As concerns Defendants’ actual showing of
good cause, the Court finds its to be sufficient. In Digital Music News LLC
v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good
cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the
action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that
fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the
fact.” Defendants maintain that Plaintiff may have been distracted
by his phone at the time of the incident causing him to cross over traffic
lanes. Defendants’ counsel expressed this position to Plaintiff in the process
of meet and confer. It is not a great stretch of the imagination to postulate
that a party in a motor vehicle negligence action was potentially distracted by
their cell phone. Plaintiff appears to agree, given that they propounded
identical requests for Defendants’ cell phone records. (Hillier Decl.
¶ 6.) The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegations
that Defendants were on their phone at the time of the incident.
Regardless of the
factual pleadings in this case, it is abundantly clear to the Court that
whether Plaintiff or Defendants were on their cell phone at the time of the
incident is now a fact directly relevant to potential claims/defenses in this
case. As such, the Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause to compel
further discovery.
The Court thus turns
to Plaintiff’s objection on the grounds of privacy concerns. The party
asserting the right of privacy, bears the initial burden of demonstrating (1) a
“legally protected privacy interest”; (2) an “objectively reasonable
expectation of privacy in the given circumstances”; and (3) a “threatened
intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th
531, 552.) If the asserting party meets this standard, responding party must
then show that the requested documents are “directly relevant” to the
litigation. (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387,
citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 858-859.)
The party seeking information may raise in
response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure
serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives
that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the
loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams
supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552 [internal citations omitted].)
Under
Williams, a party objecting to discovery must establish a legally
protected privacy interest and a reasonable expectation of privacy. Here,
Plaintiff has done so. Plaintiff's cell phone records are protected by the
right to privacy, and he has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy
in these records. Compelled disclosure of the requested documents would
constitute a serious intrusion into Plaintiff's right to privacy.
As
Plaintiff has made the showing of protected privacy interest, the burden shifts
to Defendant to show that the discovery is "directly relevant" to the
claims or defenses in dispute and is "essential to the fair resolution of
the lawsuit." (Lantz v. Super. Ct. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839,
1854.) Here, Defendants have done so. Evidence as to whether Plaintiff was on
his phone at the time of the incident is directly relevant to the potential
defense of comparative negligence. Further, there exists no viable alternative
for Defendants to obtain this information outside of the phone records and thus
the information is essential to a fair resolution.
While
the Court finds Defendants have demonstrated an important countervailing
interest to Plaintiff’s privacy rights, it disagrees that the scope of the
request is appropriate. If the purpose of this discovery is to obtain
information on whether Plaintiff was on his phone at the time of incident,
there appears to be little need for the records to extend to an hour after the
incident.
Accordingly,
the motion to compel further responses is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is ordered
to produce text message records and his cell phone bill documenting 15 minutes
prior and 30 minutes after the incident.
Protective Order
To
the extent Plaintiff deems it necessary, they may request a protective order
regarding any perceived privacy rights of Plaintiff or any third party either
by stipulation or through court order.
Sanctions
The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any
party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel a further response, 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. (C.C.P. § 2031.310(h).)
Here the Court finds that Plaintiff opposed the instant
motion without substantial justification. The fact that Plaintiff tendered an
identical document request to Defendant and thereafter argued against
Defendants’ claim of privilege indicates to the Court that Plaintiff knew this
opposition to be without merit. As such, the Court awards Defendant sanctions
against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount
of $585. This amount reflects three hours of attorney work is bringing and
arguing this motion at a rate of $175 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee.
(Hillier Decl. ¶ 11.) The Court finds this rate reasonable and the amount
of work commensurate with a motion of this type. The Court notes that
Defendants’ request appears to include another listing for “filing fees” at
$1,000. (Hillier Decl. ¶ 11(d).) Defendant provides no explanation as to
what this additional filing fee is and the Court declines to include it.
---
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
Martha &
Rigoberto Ayala’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came
on regularly for hearing on July 5, 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 FURTHER RESPONSES IS GRANTED IN PART.
PLAINTIFF
IS ORDERED TO PRODUCE TEXT MESSAGE RECORDS AND HIS CELL PHONE BILL DOCUMENTING
15 MINUTES PRIOR AND 30 MINUTES AFTER THE INCIDENT.
SUBSEQUENT
PRODUCTION TO OCCUR WITHIN 30 DAYS.
SANCTIONS
ARE AWARDED AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $585. SANCTIONS SHALL
BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.
UNLESS
ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANTS TO GIVE NOTICE.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
DATE: July
5, 2024 _______________________________
F.M.
TAVELMAN, Judge
Superior Court of California
County of
Los Angeles