Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 21STCV36657, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36657    Hearing Date: August 20, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 8-20-24

Case #21STCV36657, Larry Carlon, et al. vs. Estate of Jonathan Patrick Tatone, et al.

Trial Date: 4-28-25

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant County of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Larry Carlon

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories

RULING: Motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION AND ANALYSIS

On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff Larry Carlon (Plaintiff) filed this wrongful death case against Defendant County of Los Angeles (Defendant).

Defendant propounded discovery on Plaintiff, including special interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Because Plaintiff is the father of the adult decedent who is the subject of the wrongful death action, Defendant seeks information as to whether Plaintiff was financially dependent upon the decedent. Plaintiff served responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories and requests for production on March 6, 2024. This motion concerns the special interrogatories. Plaintiff objected to and refused to respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 30 through 44. The parties engaged in substantial meet and confer efforts in order to resolve the issues present. They were unsuccessful, so Defendant filed this motion on July 23, 2024.

Special Interrogatories 30 through 44 seek information related to the bank accounts, investment accounts, retirement accounts, retirement-related payments, sources of financial gain (on or after January 1, 2016, until June 1, 2021), and real property, as well as the balances and values of those accounts and property as of June 1, 2021.

Defendant argues that the information it seeks through the special interrogatories is highly relevant. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff must provide full responses, as the right to privacy does not justify Plaintiff’s failure to respond and the special interrogatories are not overly broad.

Plaintiff argues in his opposition that the special interrogatories do not seek highly relevant information and that the right to privacy justifies his objections. He also argues that the interrogatories are overbroad.

Defendant’s reply reasserts the arguments made in its motion.

ANALYSIS

A party may obtain discovery related to any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the litigation, provided the matter is admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.)

When a responding party’s objections and responses to interrogatories are “without merit” and/or “too general,” a party may move to compel further responses for “good cause.” (CCP § 2030.300.) The “good cause” requirement is met by a showing of relevance. (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2022) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) Relevance in this context is broad. (Id.) Evidence is “relevant” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. (Id.) “Under the Legislature’s ‘very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,’ any ‘doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.’” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542 (quoting Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173).) Courts presume all relevant nonprivileged evidence in a party’s possession is discoverable. (Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

            Relevance of the Special Interrogatories

Defendant argues that the disputed special interrogatories are relevant because they seek information that it argues is necessary in determining whether Plaintiff was financially dependent on the decedent. That is a requirement for a wrongful death action pursuant to CCP § 377.60.

Plaintiff argues that the information sought by Defendant is not relevant because Defendant seeks details about owned businesses, income, investments, properties owned, and loans made by the decedent to his parents. Plaintiffs argues that this information is not determinative of whether Plaintiff had some expectancy to have some financial dependence on his son for the necessities in life. Plaintiff further argues that the focus should be on the support provided by the decedent to his father, the Plaintiff, rather than the overall financial status of Plaintiff.

Next, Plaintiff argues that the actions by the decedent right before his death evidence a commitment to provide for both his parents for the necessities of life, due to his parents’ age and medical complications.

Defendant argues in reply that the information it seeks is highly relevant because “[P]arents cannot be considered ‘dependent’ for purposes of the wrongful death statute unless they were ‘actually dependent, to some extent, upon the decedent for the necessaries of life.’” (Soto v. BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 165, 189 (citation omitted).)

Plaintiff brought his wrongful death claim based on his assertion that he was financially dependent on the decedent. Therefore, information concerning Plaintiff’s financial accounts and the amount of money in those accounts is highly relevant to the lawsuit. It is not enough for him to say that he was financially dependent on the decedent; he needs to demonstrate it through evidence of his own financial condition at that time.

            Right of Privacy

The constitutional right of privacy is not absolute. (Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 38; see John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199 (a party’s “privacy interests may have to give way to [the] opponent’s right to a fair trial” (citation omitted))). A party who asserts a right to privacy must establish: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy. (Hill, 7 Cal.4th at 35-37.) However, even if the threshold Hill requirements are established, a court must then balance the right of privacy against the need for disclosure. (Id.) “Courts . . . place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion . . ..” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

Courts allow discovery into a party’s finances where the finances are relevant to the case. (Rawnsley v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 91-92 (financial information that goes to the cause of action at issue is generally discoverable).)

In this case, Plaintiff’s financial information is directly relevant to the case. Any privacy interests that Plaintiff might have in that information is overcome by the need for disclosure. Additionally, there is already a protective order in place in this case, so any doubts about the privacy of the information may be resolved by the protective order.

            Breadth of the Interrogatories

Plaintiff argues that the special interrogatories are overbroad because they seek financial information spanning from January 1, 2016, through June 1, 2021. However, only Special Interrogatories Nos. 39 and 40 deal with this longer time period, and those interrogatories seek sources of financial gain over that time period. The rest of the interrogatories only seek information on accounts and real property as of June 1, 2021. These requests are not overbroad, as they deal with a specific relevant time period or a specific date in time.

            Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant’s Special Interrogatories are relevant, do not violate Plaintiff’s privacy interests, and are not overly broad.

ORDER

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 30 through 44 is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 30 through 44 within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.