Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 24AHCV00123, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24AHCV00123 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: July 31, 2024 TRIAL DATE: April 22, 2025
CASE: Marlen Tashjir, an
individual; Artine Abadjian, an individual v. Moses Michael Vigil, an
individual; Juan Valles, an individual; Enterprises Holdings LLC, a limited
liability company
CASE NO.: 24AHCV00123
(1)
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE;
(2)
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND
(3)
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Moses Michael Vigil
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff
Marlen Tashjir
SERVICE: (1)-(3) Filed May 7, 2024
OPPOSITION: (1)–(3) Filed July 17, 2024
REPLY: (1)-(3) Filed July 24, 2024
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant Moses Michael Vigil seeks
an order compelling Plaintiff Marlen Tashjir to provide further responses to his
Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Special Interrogatories, and Requests
for Production of Documents (Set One).
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a motor vehicle
collision that occurred on June 20, 2023 along the I-210 freeway near San
Gabriel Boulevard in the city of Pasadena. Plaintiffs Marlen Tashjir
(“Tashjir”) and Arine Abadjian filed this complaint on January 22, 2024 and
each allege a cause of action for negligence against Defendants Moses Michael
Vigil, Juan Valles, and Enterprises Holdings LLC.
On January 25, 2024, Plaintiffs
filed an Amendment to Complaint adding EAN Holdings LLC as a named defendant.
On January 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a subsequent Amendment to Complaint
correcting Defendant Juan Valles’ name to Juanis Valles.
On February 13, 2024, Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed Defendants EAN Holdings, LLC and Enterprise Holdings LLC.
On February 28, 2024, Defendant Moses
Michael Vigil (“Vigil”) filed his answer to the complaint.
On March 7, 2024, Defendant Juanis
Valles (“Valles”) filed her answer to the complaint. Thereafter, on March 11,
2024, Valles filed a cross-complaint for implied indemnity, total indemnity,
declaratory relief and apportionment of fault against Vigil, Enterprise
Holdings LLC, and EAN Holdings LLC.
Now, Vigil seeks to compel further
responses from Tashjir concerning the following discovery requests: (1) Form
Interrogatories, Set One (“FROGs”); (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”);
and (3) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPDs”). Tashjir opposes
the motion.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant
Moses Michael Vigil’s motion to compel
further re: FROGs is GRANTED in part as to FROG No. 6.7 and DENIED as to the
remainder. Defendant Moses Michael Vigil’s motion to compel further re: SROGs
is DENIED in its entirety. Defendant Moses Michael Vigil’s motion to compel further
re: RPDs is DENIED as to RPD No. 15 and MOOT as to the remainder.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this
title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the
determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself
admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
Among the standard written methods of discovery are interrogatories (see id.,
§ 2030 et seq.), requests for production of documents (see id., § 2031
et seq.), and requests for admission (see id., § 2033 et seq.).
For each method of discovery, if a propounding party contends that the
responding party has provided insufficient or incomplete responses, the
propounding party may move for an order compelling the responding party to
provide complete, Code-compliant responses. (See id., §§ 2030.300
[interrogatories], 2031.310 [requests for production], 2033.290 [requests for
admission].)
DISCUSSION
Procedural Issues
It
is noted that Tashjir’s opposition papers failed to include a memorandum of
points and authorities to support each corresponding separate statement that
has been filed. To the extent that Tashjir relies solely on the separate
statements, they are not full and complete as required under California Rules
of Court, rule 3.1345 because they lack Vigil’s statements of factual and legal
reasons for compelling further responses. Tashjir is admonished for not
complying with the applicable rules and procedures. Notwithstanding this, the Court shall consider the arguments
presented within Tashjir’s separate statements.
Overview
Vigil seeks further responses to the
following discovery requests: (1) FROGs Nos. 6.2, 6.4, and 6.7; (2) SROGs Nos.
11-47; and (3) RPDs Nos. 1-10, 15, 17-25. (Notices of Motion at pg. 2.) On
March 1, 2024, Vigil propounded various discovery requests on Tashjir, which
included Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROGs), Special Interrogatories, Set
One (“SROGs”), and Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPDs”).
(Motion re: FROGs at pg. 1, Miller Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A; Motion re: SROGs at pg.
1, Miller Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A; Motion re: RPDs at pg. 1, Miller Decl. ¶ 2, Exh.
A.) On
March 20, 2024, Tashjir served Vigil with responses to these discovery
requests. (Id., Miller Decls. at ¶ 3, Exhs. B.) Vigil
attempted to meet and confer with Tashjir, but Tashjir’s counsel indicated that
further responses would not be provided. (Miller Decls. ¶ 4-5, Exhs. C-D.)
FROGs Nos. 6.2, 6.4, and 6.7
requested Tashjir to provide information regarding her injuries sustained from
the subject incident as well as to identify the examinations and treatments he
has received for those injuries. In response to the FROGs at issue, Tashjir
provided substantive responses, but Vigil contends that these responses are incomplete
or not in proper form. (Separate Statement re: FROGs at pp. 1-5.)
SROGs Nos. 11-47 requested Tashjir
to provide various information relating to her medical history for the last
seven years. In response to SROGs at issue, Tashjir’s responses included
objections based on relevance, invasion of privacy, overbreadth, and
oppression. (Separate Statement re: SROGs at pp. 1-54.) As to the substantive
responses provided, Tashjir responded by stating: “Subject to and without
waiving said objection, and limiting the response . . . to the same body parts
injured in the subject accident, plaintiff responds as follows: None.
Additional discovery and investigation still continuing.” (Id. at pp. 1,
4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 39, 41, 44, 47, 51, 54.) Vigil
contends these objections are meritless and that any substantive responses provided
are nonresponsive to the call of the question.
RPDs Nos. 1-10, 15, 17-25 requested
Tashjir to provide responses and to produce documents concerning Tashjir’s
medical, billing, and property damage records connected to the subject incident
as well as statements, reports, and photographs made concerning the subject
incident and other related documents. (Separate Statement re: 1-17.) Vigil
contends that the responses provided are improper because they do not comply
with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220 and fails to state what documents are
responsive to a particular demand.
Interrogatories
A. Legal Standard
An interrogatory
is an authorized method of discovery to which recipient parties must respond
within 30 days, unless the propounding and responding parties agree to an
extension. (§§ 2030.260(a), 2030.270(a).) Each response must be either an
answer, a reference to external writing from which the answer may be found, or
an objection to a specific interrogatory. (§ 2030.210(a).)
If the response
is an answer, it must be “as complete and straightforward as the information
reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (§ 2030.220 (a).) “If an
interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent
possible,” and “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.” (§ 2030.220(b)-(c).)
If the
propounding party receives an incomplete response, or a meritless or overly
general objection, the propounding party may file a motion to compel further
responses. (§ 2030.300(a).) The motion must include a meet and confer
declaration and a separate statement. (§ 2030.300(b).)
B.
FROGs
The Court rules as follows on Vigil’s
motion to compel further responses to FROGs Nos. 6.2, 6.4 and 6.7
As to FROG No. 6.2, Tashjir was
requested to identify all of the injuries she attributed to the subject
incident and the areas of the body affected. Tashjir responded by stating:
“Headaches; abdominal pain; neck pain; Upper, middle and low back pain;
bilateral shoulder pain; hip pain and both legs. Additional discovery still
continuing.” (Separate Statement re: FROGs at pg. 1.)
Vigil argues that this response is
incomplete because it lists only complaints, not actual injuries. However, the
distinction that Vigil is trying to make between “injuries” and “complaints” is
one of semantics. Tashjir’s response sufficiently identifies her injuries and
the areas that are affected. Thus, further responses are not required as to
FROG No. 6.2.
As to FROG No. 6.4, it asks whether
Tashjir received “any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses
covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310) or treatment
from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER for any injury you attribute to the INCIDENT? If
so, for each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER state: [¶] (a) the name, ADDRESS, and
telephone number; [¶] (b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment
provided; [¶] (c) the dates you received consultation, examination or
treatment; and [¶] (d) the charges to date. (Separate Statement re: FROGs at
pg. 2.)
Tashjir answered in the affirmative
provided the following response: “a. Arbi Derian, D.C., 1353 N. Altadena Drive,
Pasadena, CA 91107, Tel: 626-398- 5439; Allstar Imaging, 1451 E. Chevy Chase
Dr., Suite 102, Glendale, CA 91206; and Tri-Valley Spine and Pain Centers, 1500
S. Central Avenue, Suite 126, Glendale, CA 91204. [¶] b. MRI’s;
Chiropractic adjustments/manipulations
and physical therapy; and pain management consultation. [¶] c. See attached
itemized statement of charges for dates of treatment. [¶] d. See attached
itemized statement of charges.” (Ibid.)
Vigil argues that these responses
are not in the proper form because the information is comingled and does not
specify where the attached documents can be found. While Vigil complains of the
formatting of Tashjir’s response, this does not render it incomplete that would
necessitate further responses. It is clear that Tashjir formatted her response
in a way to limit redundancies through the usage of semicolons, which does not
create confusion. As to the reference of the itemized statements within subdivisions
(c) and (d), a responding party is permitted to prepare a compilation of or summary
of the documents that the interrogatory is directed and to specify the writings
where the information can be ascertained. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.)
Sufficient detail must be provided so that the documents can be located. (Ibid.)
Vigil suggest that Tashjir was obligated to specify a particular bates number
or exhibit number. However, this is not contemplated by the Code. By stating
that the itemized statements have been attached to the discovery requests, the
Court finds that this sufficiently complies with Code of Civil Procedure §
2030.230 because the documents can be readily found. Notably, Vigil makes no
claim that he was unable to or had difficulty in locating these itemized
statements. Therefore, the further responses are not required for FROG No. 6.4.
Lastly, FROGs 6.7 seeks the
following information: Has any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER advised that you may
require future or additional treatment for any injuries that you attribute to
the INCIDENT? [¶] If so, for each injury state: [¶] (a) the name and ADDRESS of
each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; [¶] (b) the complaints for which the treatment was
advised; and [¶] (c) the nature, duration, and estimated cost of the
treatment.” (Separate Statement re: FROGs at pg. 4.)
In response, Tashjir stated: “(a)
Yes; [¶] (b) Arbi Derian, D.C. & Christopher Kaypekian, M.C.. [¶] (c)
Chiropractic adjustments/manipulations; 4-6 30 minute sessions of Bio Wave
Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation to the neck and upper back; 4-6 30
minute Bio Wave Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation to the lower back;
each session estimated at 1,600.00. Additional discovery is still continuing.”
(Ibid.)
The Court finds that a further
response is warranted for this request because Tashjir has failed to provide a
responsive answer to subsection (b).
Accordingly, Vigil’s Motion to
Compel Further Responses to FROGs is denied in part as to FROG Nos. 6.2 and 6.4
and granted in part as to FROG No. 6.7.
C.
SROGs
Vigil argues that
Tashjir’s responses are deficient because they provide unreasonable
qualifications to avoid a complete response. The Court disagrees. By responding
with “[s]ubject to and without waiving said objection, and limiting the
response . . . to the same body parts injured in the subject accident,
plaintiff responds as follows: None. Additional discovery and investigation
still continuing,” it does not render the response incomplete. (Id. at
pp. 1, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 39, 41, 44, 47, 51, 54.) A
plaintiff is not permitted to withhold information that relates to a physical
condition that they have put in issue by bringing this action. (See Britt v.
Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) Tashjir has placed the physical
conditions referenced in FROGs No. 6.2 at issue in this lawsuit. By limiting
her response to Vigil’s SROGs to those physical conditions, it is not improper.
(Ibid [reasoning that a plaintiff is “not obligated to sacrifice all
privacy to seek redress for a specific. . . injury’ ”].) Furthermore, because
Tashjir has provided a substantive response to each SROG at issue, the Court
declines to adjudicate whether the objections raised are meritless.
Accordingly,
Vigil’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs is denied.
RPDs
A. Legal Standard
A party who receives a demand for production,
i.e., a demand for inspection, copying, testing, etc. must respond separately
to each individual item requested with either a statement indicating
compliance, a statement that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an
objection. (§ 2031.210 (a).)
If the response is one of compliance, it must
“state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and
related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that
all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession,
custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will
be included in the production.” (§ 2031.220.)
If the response is one of an inability to comply,
it “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.” (§
2031.230.)
After receiving the response, the party who
demanded production may move for an order compelling further response to the
demand if the 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.
(Code Civ. Proc.,
§2031.310(a).)
B. Discussion
As presented
within Tashjir’s separate statement, it is indicated that supplemental
responses were provided for RPDs Nos. 1-10 and 17-25. (Opposing Separate
Statement re: RPDs at pp. 1, 3; Exh. 1.) Vigil’s reply acknowledges that
supplemental responses were provided for these requests. (See Reply re: RPDs at
pg. 2.) Thus, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs is moot at Nos.
1-10 and 17-25.
With regard to
RPDs No. 15, it seeks documents pertaining to “each health care provider from
whom Plaintiff received treatment in the seven years immediately preceding the
INCIDENT.” (Separate Statement re: RPDs at pg. 10.) Tashjir responded by
stating “none” and objected to this request on the grounds that it invaded his
right of privacy, was oppressive, and irrelevant to the subject matter of this
action.
In light of the
Court’s reasoning above as to the SROGs, Tashjir’s response is complete and
straightforward. Taken at face value, Tashjir indicates that she never received
medical treatment in the past seven years prior to the subject incident that
pertain to the injuries she complains of. There is no indication Tashjir is deliberately
withholding information.
Accordingly, the
Vigil’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs is denied as to RPD No. 15
and moot as to the remainder
Sanctions
The Court “shall impose a
monetary sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a motion to compel further response” to discovery, unless the
motion or opposition was substantially justified or other circumstances would
make imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(d)
[interrogatories], 2031.310(h) [RPDs].)
Each party requests sanctions
against the other. But each party has been partly successful and partly
unsuccessful, and each was substantially justified in its arguments.
The Court imposes no sanctions.
//
//
CONCLUSION
Vigil’s
motion to compel further responses re: FROGs is granted as to FROGs Nos. 6.7
and otherwise denied. Tashjir is ordered to provide further responses within 20
days of notice of this order.
Vigil’s motion to compel further
responses re: SROGs is denied in its entirety.
Vigil’s motion to compel further
responses re: RPDs is denied as to No. 15 and moot as to the remainder.
The requests for sanctions by both
parties are denied.
Moving
Party to give notice
Dated: July 31, 2024 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an
email to the court indicating their
intention to submit. alhdeptx@lacourt.org