Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 24SMCV03749, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03749    Hearing Date: March 13, 2025    Dept: O

3-13-25 24SMCV03749 St Paul MTC Further SROGS

Defendants Kusuma and Askirins' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is and sanctions in the amount of $1,117.50 as to Plaintiff Martha St. Paul is GRANTED. Defendants filed this motion on 11-5-24, Plaintiffs filed an opposition on 2-18-25, and Defendants filed a reply on 3-3-25. Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery on 9-12-24, and Plaintiff served verified responses on 9-18-24. (Grandy Decl., ¶¶ 3–4; Ex. A, B.) On 10-15-24 and 10-30-24  Defendants' Counsel sent email correspondence to Plaintiff seeking further responses but no responses have been received by the motion filing date on 11-5-24. (Id., ¶ 6, Ex. D.)

Defendants are entitled to 45 days plus two court days to file the Motion to Compel Further Responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300c, 1010.6(a)(4)(B); see also Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 137 ["Because their verifications were electronically served on March 17, 2021, petitioner's deadline to “give notice” of its motion to compel their responses was May 4, 2021 (45 calendar days plus 2 court days after service of the verifications)"].) The MTC further was filed on 11-5-24, forty-five days plus two court days after the verified responses were served on Defendants, thus the motion is timely.

Plaintiff argues the motion seeks to infringe on Plaintiff's right to privacy, however Plaintiff does meet her burden under the Hill test to assert the right to privacy. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, established a three-prong test for privacy rights: (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances and (3) conduct constituting a serious invasion of privacy. The party asserting the right to privacy has the burden of proof and Plaintiff does not meet her burden under Hill. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35–38.) "Legally recognized privacy interests are generally of two classes: (1) interests in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (“informational privacy”); and (2) interests in making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference (“autonomy privacy”)." (Id., at p. 35.) Plaintiff does not provide any legal authority to assert her right of privacy over the Requests 14 (pre-accident gyms), 15 (post-accident gyms), 16 (business trips), 17 (personal vacations), and the medical records pertaining to the loss. In fact, Plaintiff's "may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit." (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) Plaintiff has put her medical information at issue with the filing of the lawsuit and as such Defendants are entitled to Plaintiff's medical information as it relates to her alleged injuries.

Thus, the Court orders Plaintiffs to file code compliant verified supplemental responses, without objection to SROGs Nos. 1–3, 11, 14–19 within 10 days of the hearing and pay sanctions in the amount of $1,117.50 (4.5 hrs. @ $235/hr + $60 filing fee) pursuant to CCP § 2030.300.