Judge James L. Crandall, Case 20-1170519 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 20-1170519, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

2. Motion to Compel Production

MOTION NO. 1:

Defendant Excelsior Restoration, Inc.’s motion to compel plaintiff Bryan Surles to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in pertinent part: “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (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. [¶] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 . . . (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”

Meet and Confer:

Defendant has shown that on April 20, 2022, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s response to the Special Interrogatories served on April 18, 2022. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) Thereafter on April 28, 2022, Plaintiff served his “First Amended Responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One.” (Mantych Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) Although Defendant has not shown that it met and conferred about the First Amended Responses, Plaintiff’s response to the Special Interrogatories at issue in this Motion are mostly identical to Plaintiff’s prior responses. Accordingly, the court finds that Defendant sufficiently met and conferred with Plaintiff prior to bringing this Motion.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 29, 30 and 32.

Special Interrogatory No. 29:

Special Interrogatory No. 29 asks Plaintiff to “IDENTIFY all HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS that have ever provided YOU with any treatment for diabetes.”

Plaintiff has supplemented his response to the Special Interrogatory twice since serving his initial response, but all three responses simply assert objections. Plaintiff’s supplemental responses including the Amended response which is the subject of this Motion improperly asserts objections not asserted in the initial response. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Spyglass Homeowners Ass'n) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273 [even where a timely response is made, the responding party cannot later add objections without a court order granting relief from the waiver].

In his Amended response, Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it violates physician-patient privilege, overbroad without reasonable limitation as to scope, not relevant to the subject matter of this action, protected by Responding Party’s and Third Parties’ constitutional right to privacy in violation of Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution, State law and Federal law, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The only objections that Plaintiff asserted in his initial response that are also asserted in the Amended response are that the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff waived the remaining objections by failing to object on those grounds in his initial response.

The burden is on the Plaintiff to justify the objections. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Plaintiff has failed to show that the information sought is not relevant. Plaintiff is claiming his left leg needed to be amputated because of Defendant’s actions.

Defendant has shown that the details of Plaintiff’s prior treatment for diabetes is relevant because Plaintiff’s pre-existing diabetes may have been the cause of his left leg amputation. Defendant has shown that at the time of the incident Defendant had an existing open sore on his left leg, and he was taking multiple diabetes medications. Further, Plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his medical records because he has filed a lawsuit for severe bodily injuries.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 29 is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 30: IDENTIFY all HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS that have ever provided YOU with any treatment for any diabetes-related complication or condition.

Plaintiff has supplemented his response to the Special Interrogatory twice since serving his initial response, but all three responses simply assert objections. Plaintiff’s supplemental responses including the Amended response which is the subject of this Motion improperly assert objections not asserted in the initial response. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Spyglass Homeowners Ass'n) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273.)

Plaintiff has failed to show that the information sought is not relevant. Plaintiff is claiming his left leg needed to be amputated because of Defendant’s actions. Defendant has shown that the details of Plaintiff’s prior treatment for diabetes is relevant because Plaintiff’s pre-existing diabetes may have been the cause of his left leg amputation. Defendant has shown that at the time of the incident Defendant had an existing open sore on his left leg, and he was taking multiple diabetes medications. Further, Plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his medical records because he has filed a lawsuit for severe bodily injuries.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 30 is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 32:

IDENTIFY all HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS that have ever provided services as YOUR primary care physician in the last ten (10) years.

Plaintiff has supplemented his response to the Special Interrogatory twice since serving his initial response, but all three responses simply assert objections. Plaintiff’s supplemental responses including the Amended response which is the subject of this Motion improperly assert objections not asserted in the initial response. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Spyglass Homeowners Ass'n) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273.)

Plaintiff has failed to show that the information sought is not relevant. Here, Plaintiff is claiming his left leg needed to be amputated because of Defendant’s actions. The details of Plaintiffs pre-existing conditions including his pre-existing diabetes, and possibly other conditions, are relevant because they could be the cause of his left leg amputation. Defendant has shown that at the time of the incident Defendant had an existing open sore on his left leg, and he was taking multiple diabetes medications.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 32 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 29, 30 and 32 within 15 days of the notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay $570 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 15 days of the notice of this ruling.

Defendant to give notice.

MOTION NO. 2:

Defendant Excelsior Restoration, Inc.’s motion to compel plaintiff Bryan Surles to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 19 and for production of reasonably legible documents, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides: “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: (1) the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

The burden is on the moving party to show relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (See Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. If the moving party demonstrates good cause, then the opposing party must justify any objections. (Kirkland v Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98 (Kirkland).)

Meet and Confer:

Defendant has shown that on April 20, 2022, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s “Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.” (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) Thereafter on April 28, 2022, Plaintiff served his “First Amended Responses to the Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.” (Mantych Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) Although Defendant has not shown that it met and conferred about the First Amended Responses, Plaintiff’s response to Request No. 19 in the First Amended Responses is identical to Plaintiff’s prior response. Accordingly, the court finds that Defendant sufficiently met and conferred with Plaintiff prior to bringing this Motion.

Request For Production No. 19:

Request No. 19 seeks “ALL DOCUMENTS that reflect any service received by YOU from any HEALTHCARE PROVIDER related to any amputation of YOUR right leg.”

Plaintiff’s Amended Response states: “The demand is oppressive and burdensome because it is vague and ambiguous as to date and scope of documents being requested. Notwithstanding and not waiving the objections, plaintiff believes Anaheim Regional Medical Center is in possession of responsive documents.”

Defendant has sufficiently shown that good cause exists to compel a further response. Plaintiff claims that his left leg needed to be amputated because of Defendant’s actions. Defendant contends that at the time of the incident, Plaintiff had an existing open sore on his left leg and was taking multiple medications for diabetes. Therefore, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s pre-existing diabetes was likely the cause of his recent left leg amputation. Therefore, the documents requested are relevant to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries in this action.

The Request is also neither overly burdensome and oppressive nor vague and ambiguous as to date and scope because the Request is limited to services received from healthcare providers related to amputation of Plaintiff’s right leg.

Further, Plaintiff response that he “believes Anaheim Regional Medical Center is in possession of responsive documents” fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.230. Section 2031.230 states: “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

Accordingly, Defendant’s request to compel a further response is GRANTED.

Request for Production of reasonably legible documents:

Defendant has shown that on April 18, 2022, Plaintiff produced 5 pages of medical records in response to Defendants Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 4.) However, 4 of the documents are so blurry that they are unusable. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 4.) Although Defendant has requested readable documents, Plaintiff has failed to provide them. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) Plaintiff does not provide any explanation for failing to provide readable documents.

Accordingly, Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff to produce legible documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce legible documents within 15 days of the notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff is also ORDERED to provide a further response to Request for Production No. 19 within 15 days of the notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay $570 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 15 days of the notice of this ruling.

Defendant to give notice.

Future hearing dates

4/28/23 – MSC

5/30/23 – Jury Trial