Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 19STCV40032, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV40032 Hearing Date: September 18, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: September 18, 2023 TRIAL DATE: January 16, 2023
CASE: SARKIS ATYEMIZIAN,
an individual; SILVA ATYEMIZIAN, an individual, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
COMPANY, a corporation; SEMPRA ENERGY, a corporation; DESIGN BUILD STRATEGIES,
INC, a California corporation; JOHNNY KANOUNJI, an individual, KEVIN HUNTER, an
individual; AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a California Corporation;
SAPPHIRE POOL AND SPA CONSTRUCTION INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 19STCV40032
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Southern
California Gas Company
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs
Sarkis Atyemizian and Sylva Atyemizian
SERVICE: Filed July 13 and 21, 2023.
OPPOSITION: Filed August 2, 2023, and September 5,
2023
REPLY: Filed August 8, 2023, and September 11, 2023.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant moves to compel further
responses to its requests for the production of documents, set four, and
special interrogatories, set two.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs Sarkis
Atyemizian and Silva Atyemizian’s (“Plaintiffs”) claim that Defendants Southern
California Gas Company (“So Cal Gas”), Design Build Strategies, Inc (“Design
Build”), Johnny Kanounji, Kevin Hunter, American Contractors Indemnity Company,
and Sapphire Pool and Spa Construction Inc. (“Defendants”) negligently
installed or maintained the gas lines on Plaintiffs’ property at 1452 E.
Woodbury Rd., Pasadena, California 91104. Plaintiffs allege that on November
18, 2018, an explosion occurred on their property causing extensive damage.
Plaintiffs allege that the explosion occurred due to a leak in the gas line
between the main line and the gas meter on their property, causing gas to seep
into the subflooring which was ignited by an unknown source.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
on July 7, 2023, alleging ten causes of action for (1) negligence, (2)
negligence, (3) breach of contract, (4) breach of contract, (5) breach of
implied covenant to perform work in a competent manner, (6) violation of
Business and Professions Code section 7160, (7) negligent misrepresentation; (8)
inverse condemnation; (9) trespass, and (10) nuisance.
TENTATIVE RULING
So
Cal Gas’s motion to compel further responses as to its requests for production
of documents is GRANTED as to requests numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10.
So
Cal Gas’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED as to requests numbers 4
and 5.
So
Cal Gas’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to special
interrogatory numbers 8 through 26.
LEGAL STANDARD
On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may
move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ.
Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and
request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of
this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or
any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the
requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the
requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests
for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
Overview
Defendant Southern California Gas Company (“So Cal Gas”) moves to compel
further responses to its requests for production of documents set four and
special interrogatories set two. So Cal Gas provides it served its requests for
the production of documents on April 5, 2023. (Howes Decl. ¶ 2.) So Cal Gas provides Plaintiffs responded
on May 9, 2023. So Cal Gas provides it served special interrogatories set two
on January 23, 2023. (Howes Decl. ¶ 2.) So Cal Gas provides Plaintiffs
responded on May 30, 2023. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs served amended
responses on July 12, 2023.
Requests
for Production of Documents
RFP No. 1: Any and all bank statements from January 1,
2018 through December 31, 2018 covering accounts containing income and/or
expenses related to rentals at 1452/1454 E. Woodbury Rd., Pasadena.
RFP No. 2: Copies of cancelled checks supporting all
rent payments received from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
RFP No. 3: Copies of all invoices, bills and statements
concerning all expenses related to rentals at 1452/1454 E. Woodbury Rd.,
Pasadena from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 including but not
limited to: insurance, utilities, repairs and maintenance, property taxes and
mortgage statements.
RFP No. 4: Copies of your 2018 tax returns.
RFP No. 5: Copies of your 2019 tax returns
RFP No. 6: Copies of all general ledgers or other
bookkeeping documentation showing income and/or expenses related to rentals at
1452/1454 E. Woodbury Rd., Pasadena covering the year 2018.
RFP No. 9: Any and all documents you contend support
your claim for lost rents.
RFP No. 10: Any and all documents you contend support
your claim for temporary relocation costs.
Special
Interrogatories
Special
Interrogatory No. 8: Do you contend that any act or omission of SoCalGas
was a substantial factor in the explosion which occurred on November 18, 2018
at 1452 E. Woodbury Rd., Pasadena?
Special
Interrogatory No. 9: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 8 is in the
affirmative, please describe the act(s) or omission(s) with particularity.
Special
Interrogatory No. 10: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 8 is in the
affirmative, identify all facts which you claim support your contention
Special
Interrogatory No. 11: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 8 is in the
affirmative, identify all persons who have knowledge of the facts set forth in
your response to Interrogatory No. 10.
Special
Interrogatory No. 12: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 8 is in the
affirmative, identify all documents and other physical evidence which you claim
support your contention.
Special
Interrogatory No. 13: Do you contend that the gas line between the main
natural gas line and the meter at 1452 E. Woodbury Rd., identified by you in
paragraphs 22 and 23 of your First Amended Complaint, ever provided natural gas
delivery or transportation to any property other than 1452 E. Woodbury Rd.,
Pasadena?
Special
Interrogatory No. 14: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 13 is in the
affirmative, identify all facts which you claim support your contention.
Special
Interrogatory No. 15: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 13 is in the
affirmative, identify all persons who have knowledge of the facts set forth in
your response to Interrogatory No. 14.
Special
Interrogatory No. 16: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 13 is in the
affirmative, identify all documents and other physical evidence which you claim
support your contention.
Special
Interrogatory No. 17: Do you contend that the gas line between the main
natural gas line and the meter at 1452 E. Woodbury Rd., identified by you in
paragraphs 22 and 23 of your First Amended Complaint, was ever intended to
provide natural gas delivery or transportation to any property other than 1452
E. Woodbury Rd., Pasadena?
Special
Interrogatory No. 18: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 is in the
affirmative, identify all facts which you claim support your contention.
Special
Interrogatory No. 19: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 is in the
affirmative, identify all persons who have knowledge of the facts set forth in
your response to Interrogatory No. 18
Special
Interrogatory No. 20: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 is in the
affirmative, identify all documents and other physical evidence which you claim
support your contention.
Special
Interrogatory No. 21: Do you contend that any act or omission of any person
other than SoCalGas, its employees or agents, was a substantial factor in the
explosion which occurred on November 18, 2018 at 1452 E. Woodbury Rd.,
Pasadena?
Special
Interrogatory No. 22: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 21 is in the
affirmative, please identify each such person.
Special
Interrogatory No. 23: For each person identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 22, please describe the act(s) or omission(s) with
particularity.
Special
Interrogatory No. 24: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 21 is in the
affirmative, identify all facts which you claim support your contention.
Special
Interrogatory No. 25: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 21 is in the
affirmative, identify all persons who have knowledge of the facts set forth in
your response to Interrogatory No. 24.
Special
Interrogatory No. 26: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 21 is in the
affirmative, identify all documents and other physical evidence which you claim
support your contention.
Special
Interrogatory No. 27: Do you contend that you or your agent contacted
DigAlert (Underground Service Alert of Southern California) prior to
installation of the gas utility lines and sewer/drain lines identified in
paragraph 17 of your First Amended Complaint?
Special
Interrogatory No. 28: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 is in the
affirmative, please identify each person who contacted DigAlert.
Special
Interrogatory No. 29: For each person identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 28, please state the date(s) on which DigAlert was contacted.
Special
Interrogatory No. 30: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 is in the affirmative,
identify all facts which you claim support your contention.
Special
Interrogatory No. 31: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 is in the
affirmative, identify all persons who have knowledge of the facts set forth in
your response to Interrogatory No. 30.
Special
Interrogatory No. 32: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 is in the
affirmative, identify all documents and other physical evidence which you claim
support your contention.
Application
as to RFPs
So
Cal Gas’s motion to compel further responses as to its requests for production
of documents is granted as to requests numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10. So Cal
Gas’s motion to compel further responses is denied as to requests numbers 4 and
5.
“Tax
returns are privileged from disclosure.” (Strawn v. Morris, Polich &
Purdy, LLP (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1098.) “The tax return
privilege ‘is not absolute’ and ‘will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances
indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the
lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than
that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved.’ ” (Ibid.) Here,
So Cal Gas argues that Plaintiffs’ tax returns are relevant to the issue of
damages. However, So Cal Gas has not established that gravamen of the lawsuit
is inconsistent with protecting Plaintiffs’ privilege.
So Cal Gas’s
reliance on Weingarten v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 268 is
misplaced. In Weingarten, the Court expressly cautioned “against
compelled disclosure of personal tax returns except in those rare instances
where the public policy underlying the tax privilege is outweighed by other
compelling public policies or where waiver principles apply.” So Cal Gas has
not identified a compelling public policy here.
Plaintiffs
are ordered to provide further responses to requests numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7,
9, and 10. However, Plaintiffs may repeat their response that they are unable
to comply pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 if those
circumstances remain true.
Application
as to Special Interrogatories
So Cal Gas moves to compel further responses to 25 special
interrogatories. As a preliminary matter, the court notes that “[c]ivil discovery is intended to
operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. ‘[I]t is a “central precept”
of the Civil Discovery Act ... that discovery ‘be essentially
self-executing[.]’ ” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.) So Cal Gas’s motion to compel further responses is granted as to
special interrogatory numbers 8 through 26.
CONCLUSION
So
Cal Gas’s motion to compel further responses as to its requests for production
of documents is GRANTED as to requests numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10.
So
Cal Gas’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED as to requests numbers 4
and 5.
So
Cal Gas’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to special
interrogatory numbers 8 through 26.
Plaintiffs
are ordered to serve verified, code complaint responses without objections to the
above documents and special interrogatories within 15 days.
Moving
Party to give notice.
Dated: September 18, 2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court