Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV08835, Date: 2024-12-24 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

This action was filed on March 11, 2022. On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative fourth amended complaint against Defendants California Immediate Medical Center (“SCIMC”), Thomas Roccapalumbo (“Roccapalumbo”), Rong Yang, Joseph Soliz (“Soliz”), and Does 1-50, (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for: (1) invasion of privacy against all SCIMC, Soliz, and Does 1-50; (2) sexual battery against Soliz; and (3) negligent hiring and retention against SCIMC, Roccapalumbo, and Does 1-50. Plaintiff alleges that Soliz sexually assaulted her during an X-ray appointment at SCIMC.

On October 8, 2024 Plaintiff filed: (1) a motion to compel Soliz to provide further responses to special interrogatories (“SIs”) (the “SIs Motion”); and (2) a motion to compel Soliz to provide further responses to requests for production of documents (“RFPs”) (the “RFPs Motion”). Soliz filed an opposition to the SIs Motion on December 10, 2024 (the “Opposition to SIs Motion”) and an opposition to the RFPs Motion (the “Opposition to RFPs Motion”) on December 11, 2024. Plaintiff filed replies to each (the “Reply to SIs Motion” and the “Reply to RFPs Motion”) on December 11, 2024.

On October 11, 2024, Soliz filed a motion to compel further deposition testimony of Plaintiff (the “Deposition Motion”). On October 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition (the “Opposition to Deposition Motion”) and on December 17, 2024, Soliz filed a reply (the “Reply to Deposition Motion”).

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 2031.310, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

To compel a further response to interrogatories, the movant can show that: (1) the responding party’s answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete (CCP, § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)); (2) the responding party’s exercise of the option to produce documents in response to an interrogatory was unwarranted or the required specification of those documents was inadequate (CCP, § 2030.300, subd. (a)(2)); and (3) the responding party’s objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general (CCP, § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3); see, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 [defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to establish good cause or prove merits of underlying claim before propounding interrogatories without merit]).

To request further production, a movant must establish: (1) good cause for the production (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Sinaiko, supra, at p. 403); and (2) that a further response is needed because (a) the responding party’s statement of compliance with the demand to produce is incomplete CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1)), (b) the responding party’s representation that it is unable to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (a)(2)), (c) the responding party’s objection in the response is without merit or is too general (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3); Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127), or (d) if the responding party objected to the production of ESI on the ground that it is not reasonably accessible the movant can show that the (i) ESI is reasonably accessible or (ii) there is good cause for production of the ESI regardless of its accessibility (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (e)).

SIs No. 1 states: “Please list all addresses at which you have lived for the last 10 years.” (SIs Motion, Ex. A) Soliz responded: “Objection. This interrogatory is invasive of Defendant’s privacy in violation of the United States Constitution and California Constitution, Article 1. This interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: Responding party can be reached and/or served through his counsel of record in this matter.” (SIs Motion, Ex. B)

RFP No. 3 states: “Please produce a copy of your picture ID.” (RFPs Motion, Ex. A.) Soliz responded “Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. In addition this request invades the individual’s privacy as protected by the Constitutions of the United States and California and violates State and Federal privacy laws. Based on the above-mentioned objections no documents will be provided.” (RFPs Motion, Ex. B.)

The Court finds that the objections are without merit. Soliz does not provide any legal authority suggesting that a defendant in a sexual assault action has a protected privacy right in his past addresses or photo ID. The information is relevant to Plaintiff’s negligent hiring and retention cause of action because it may lead to evidence that, had Defendants screened Soliz before hiring him, such screening would have revealed information that his employment posed a particular risk of sexual assault.

In any civil action alleging conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, any party seeking discovery concerning the plaintiff's sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator shall establish specific facts showing that there is good cause for that discovery, and that the matter sought to be discovered is relevant to the subject matter of the action and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.220, subd. (a); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 843 [“In a civil suit alleging conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, any party seeking discovery concerning the plaintiff's sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator must establish specific facts showing good cause for that discovery, and that the inquiry is relevant to the subject matter and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.]”.) Thus, the party seeking to discover a plaintiff’s sexual conduct with other individuals must establish not only general relevance, but also specific facts showing good cause for the discovery.

Soliz moves for an order permitting further deposition questioning into Plaintiff’s sexual assault allegation that occurred when she was a minor at Camp Joseph Scott. (Deposition Motion, p. 7:7-9) In response to FIs, Plaintiff stated that the alleged incident with Soliz “was the first and only time in my life that I had been sexually assaulted.” (Deposition Motion, Ex. B [response to FIs No. 6.2].) Plaintiff testified during her deposition, however, that “I was in camp when I was a minor, and something happened to me when I was a juvenile” and that she had a current lawsuit regarding an alleged sexual assault that occurred at Camp Joseph Scott when she was 13. (Deposition Motion, Ex. E, pp. 80:17-81:2, 85:15-86:25) Soliz argues that permitting discovery into the incident at Camp Joseph Scott and other previous sexual assaults is relevant to Plaintiff’s credibility in this case regarding her claim that all her emotional distress damages are a result of the alleged assault by Soliz.

In the Opposition to the Deposition Motion, Plaintiff relies on Evidence Code section 783; however, that statute is not relevant here because it pertains to admissibility, not discoverability. (See Evidence Code §§ 780-783.)

The Court agrees that testimony about the incident at Camp Joseph Scott is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Plaintiff’s claims that the incident with Soliz caused her damages. Thus, the Court will permit Soliz to conduct further deposition questioning only about the incident at Camp Joseph Scott but will not allow questioning about ‘any other assaults.’ Thus, the Deposition Motion is GRANTED.

Soliz is ordered to provide further verified, Code-compliant responses within 20 days of this order.

The Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony is GRANTED. Soliz is permitted to conduct additional deposition questioning consistent with the Court’s ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court