Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV00996, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00996    Hearing Date: December 20, 2024    Dept: A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE

NOTICE:

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: 

Cuong Truong (Plaintiff) brings this action against Richard Huang (Defendant) for injuries he allegedly sustained in an April 22, 2023 car collision. Plaintiff alleges Defendant negligently operated his motor vehicle in such as way that it came into contact with Defendant’s vehicle and caused significant injury.

Before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 26. Defendant opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete, (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response, or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)

II.                 MERITS

Special Interrogatory No. 26

Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 26 is as follows:

State DEFENDANT'S cellular telephone number and provider at the time of the INCIDENT

(Zurita-Cruz Decl. Exh. 2.)

On August 23, 2024, Defendant interposed the following response:

Defendant objects on the grounds of privacy as protected by the California and Federal Constitutions as to persons not involved or present at the time of the subject incident, the interrogatory is compound, harassing, burdensome and seeks information irrelevant to the subject matter of the litigation nor intended to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the aforementioned objections, defendant would produce this information upon request that plaintiff seeks phone records for the half hour preceding the subject incident, and the half hour following the subject incident if received without further request.

(Korff Decl. Exh. A.)

The Court notes that Defendant’s objection does not appear to be absolute. While Defendant objects on privacy grounds to the production of his telephone number and provider, he has actively offered to produce his phone records for the half hour preceding and following the incident.

Meet and Confer Efforts

On September 15, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter outlining the perceived deficiencies in Defendants responses to SPROG. (Zurita-Cruz Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 4.) On September 20, 2024, the parties agreed to extend the deadline for Defendant to provide further verified responses to October 4, 2024 and to extend Plaintiffs deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to November 4, 2024. (Zurita-Cruz Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. 5.)

On October 7, 2024, counsel for the parties met and conferred telephonically. (Zurita-Cruz Decl. ¶ 9.) The contents of that meeting were memorialized in an email from Plaintiff’s counsel that same day. (Zurita-Cruz Decl. Exh. 6.) Relevant to this motion, Plaintiff’s counsel stated:

Regarding Special Interrogatory 26, you relayed Defendant will not be providing a further verified response that provides the Defendant's cell phone number and provider. I relayed I will be filing a motion to compel this information.

In reviewing the met and confer correspondence the Court observes that a miscommunication likely occurred somewhere. It appears to the Court that Plaintiff’s counsel is discussing one thing and Defendant’s counsel another. Plaintiff’s counsel seems to believe that Defendant is outright refusing that his phone usage could ever be relevant to this litigation, when in fact Defendant has offered to produce records which would appear to display exactly that. In any event, it does not appear to the Court that either party engaged in these communications in bad faith. It appears more likely that the parties came to an impasse as the result of a miscommunication and the Court is more than willing to provide a resolution to the issue.

Discussion

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.) 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, Defendant has done so. Defendant’s cell phone number and provider are protected by his right to privacy, and he has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in these records. Compelled disclosure of the requested information would pose the threat of serious intrusion into Plaintiff's right to privacy.

As Defendant has made the showing of protected privacy interest, the burden shifts to Plaintiff 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, Plaintiff argues that whether Defendant was on his phone at the time of the incident directly bears on Defendant’s potential contributory negligence and on Defendant’s reliability as a witness of the incident. However, Plaintiff ignores the second prong of the privacy analysis wherein the requested information must be shown to be “essential” to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.

Plaintiff has made clear that his intent in propounding this interrogatory is to, “conduct his own investigation” and “confirm the veracity” of Defendant’s statement at his deposition that he was not on his phone at the time of the incident (Reply p. 4.) Presumably Plaintiff means he intends to use this information to subpoena Defendant’s phone records from around the time of the incident. The problem then arises that Plaintiff’s request is far broader in scope than what is needed to verify Defendant’s statement. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the need for Defendant’s phone number and provider, so much as he has demonstrated the need for Defendant’s phone records immediately before and after the incident. The Court notes once more that Defendant has already explicitly offered to give Plaintiff his phone records so that Defendant’s statement may be verified. 

In short, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated the broad scope of information requested by SPROG No. 26 is essential to the fair resolution of this lawsuit. Plaintiff has demonstrated the need for Defendant’s phone records for the time around the incident and nothing further. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses is GRANTED subject to the condition that Defendant is only required to produce his cell phone records for the period thirty minutes before and after incident.

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 neither party acted without substantial justification. As previously stated, the Court believes this motion resulted from a miscommunication and not from any bad faith actions of counsel. Accordingly, the Court declines to award sanctions.

--- 

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 

Cuong Truong’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on December 20, 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 IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:

DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26 IN THE FORM OF HIS PHONE RECORDS FOR THE PERIOD THIRTY MINUTES BEFORE AND AFTER THE INCIDENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO PROVIDE THE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND CARRIER WITH THE LIMITATION THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL ONLY SEEK RECORDS THIRTY MINUTES BEFORE AND AFTER THE INCIDENT.

THE COURT DECLINES TO AWARD SANCTIONS

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: December 20, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles