Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV07457, Date: 2024-04-15 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.

Case Number: 23STCV07457    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant Dirt Dog, Inc. (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Isabel Rendon (“Plaintiff”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action against Defendant on April 4, 2023 for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Complaint alleges in relevant part that Defendant denies blind individuals equal enjoyment of and access to the products, services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations and information made available through its website (the “Website”) by preventing them from freely navigating the Website. The Website is alleged to contain access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and other blind persons using screen reading software. (Complaint, ¶21.)

            On November 13, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s further response to Form Interrogatory No. 11.1. On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition, and on April 8, 2024, Defendant replied.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

Responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).)¿ If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(b).)¿ “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).)¿

Under CCP § 2030.300(a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Form Interrogatory 11.1

            Form Interrogatory No. 11.1 asks: “Except for this action, in the past 10 years have you filed an action or made a written claim or demand for compensation for your personal injuries?” If so, the interrogatory requests details as to the claims.

            Plaintiff responded with the following: “Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is irrelevant and unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states as follows: No.”

            Defendant argues that the objection of relevance is meritless and that the answer of “no” is incorrect. Defendant represents that Plaintiff has filed at least 46 Unruh personal injury claims/actions (see Link Decl., Exh. 4), the information on which is very relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further argues that an Unruh case is a personal injury action.

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she is not claiming any sort of personal injury as a result of the incident that gave rise to this action. Plaintiff contends that the Unruh Civil Rights Act is a strict liability statute and requires no proof of damage, loss or injury. (Civ. Code, § 52(a), setting damages of “in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000);” see Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 33-34.) Plaintiff asserts that Civil Code section 55.56 has no application to this case because it does not contain a “construction-related accessibility claim.” 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s answer of “no” to be insufficient. While Plaintiff objected on the ground of relevance, which the Court finds without merit, as it goes towards whether Plaintiff is a repeat litigant, Plaintiff did not object to the request on the basis that the term “personal injuries” is vague or ambiguous. Thus, the Court need not consider any issues raised by Plaintiff as to that term. Accordingly, Plaintiff is required to provide a further response without objection to No. 11.1, including the information as to the claims to which Defendant refers, within twenty (20) days of the date of this order..

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this 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.

  Dated this 15th day of April 2024