Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2023-00024369-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 02, 2024

04/04/2024  01:30:00 PM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00024369-CU-PO-CTL QUEST VS DOE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 03/01/2024

The Motion (ROA # 114) of Defendant City of San Diego ('Defendant' or 'City') to compel Plaintiff Alexander Quest ('Plaintiff') to provide further responses to the City's Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2.2 - 2.4 and Nos. 2.6 - 2.7 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3 - 6, as well as the remainder of Plaintiff's document production, is, on the Court's own motion, CONTINUED to Friday April 5, 2024 at 9:00 AM in D 73.

The Motion is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART and will be HEARD IN PART.

The Court has read and considered Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ('SAC' - ROA # 138) in which Plaintiff alleges seven claims (including a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress) against Defendants.

The Court has also read and considered Defendants' Answer (ROA # 71) to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ('FAC') in which Defendants generally deny Plaintiff's claims and assert multiple affirmative defenses.

Plaintiff's objections are, except as noted, OVERRULED. The information sought is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to one or more of the elements (including damages) on which Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. The information sought may be protected, in part, by a privilege; however, given Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff has waived his right to protect the confidentiality of the information sought.

The City's putative request for sanctions is DENIED. The Notice of Motion does not contain a request for sanctions.

Plaintiff's counter request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant did not act without substantial justification.

True, the Interrogatories are, as framed, compound; however, the information sought by the Interrogatories are clear and unambiguous. Rather than sustain the compound objection without prejudice, and permit the City leave to re-propound the Interrogatories (which will only consume unnecessary time and resources), the Court overrules the compound objection.

The Court will HEAR whether the ten year time frame is overly broad.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3094257 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  QUEST VS DOE [IMAGED]  37-2023-00024369-CU-PO-CTL Plaintiff is directed to serve Code-compliant further responses within twenty (20) days of the hearing of this Motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3094257