Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 20-1149812, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

There are two discovery motions to compel further responses before the court:

1.    Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Five).

2.    Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Five).

The record strongly suggests that as to plaintiff’s motion to compel the parties did not meet and confer.  Plaintiff asserts she is not seeking everything from the J-117B Project files, but only selected portions related to this case.  Defendant complains that the plaintiff is seeking everything and something less would be appropriate.

The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer meaningfully about these discovery requests.

Defendant seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 127-132.  They seek information about plaintiff’s finances because of her claims of emotional distress based, in part, on her “financial instability.”  The court notes that plaintiff’s expert psychiatrist, Dr. Franklin Milgrim, has testified that plaintiff’s finances have been seriously impacted, that she is “down to fumes in terms of money,” and does not know how she will be able to pay for living expenses and medical care.

Given her claims, defendant has the right to discover relevant facts about her financial affairs.  However, that right to discovery must be balanced against plaintiff’s right to privacy.  (See John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199; see also Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

The interrogatories are not unduly overbroad or vague, and the defendant is willing to enter into a modified protective order to protect plaintiff’s privacy interests.  The court rejects plaintiff’s argument that the declaration for additional discovery is somehow inadequate, and that the number of special interrogatories is unwarranted.  No protective order was sought.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subdivision (b)(2); see also Catanese v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165.)

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED, and plaintiff is ORDERED to serve further responses within 10 days.  Defendant’s request for sanctions against the plaintiff only is GRANTED but in the modified amount of $1,500, payable within 30 days.

Motion to Bifurcate

The defendant has also filed a renewed motion to bifurcate the issue of liability from damages.  That motion is scheduled to be heard on August 17, 2023.  Trial in this matter is scheduled for September 18, 2023.

On its own motion, the court advances that motion to this calendar.  It is DENIED without prejudice.

As this court indicated the last time this issue was raised, the court generally addresses these issues at trial.  (See Min. Order of Nov. 10, 2022 (ROA 378).)  It was premature then and it is premature now.

Trial

As noted above, trial in this matter is scheduled for September 18, 2023.

The parties should be prepared to discuss whether they will be ready for trial on the scheduled date.  If not, the court would entertain an oral request to continue trial to a date mutually agreed upon.

Notice

The defendant shall give notice.