Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV24139, Date: 2023-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24139    Hearing Date: July 26, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further is GRANTED as to the RFAs and Form Interrogatories. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART as to the RFPs. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 32, 34, and 36, but GRANTED in all other respects. In light of this conclusion, the Court declines to award sanctions at this time. 

            On 7/26/2023, Kelly Pessis, an individual and as Trustee of the Yeti Trust, and Steven Breese, an individual and as Trustee of the Yeti Trust (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed suit against Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (Defendants), alleging: (1) professional negligence; and (2) negligent misrepresentation.

            Now, Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to their Requests for Production (RFPs), Requests for Admission (RFAs), and Form Interrogatories.

Discussion

            As a preliminary matter, Defendant did not file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their Form Interrogatories or Requests for Admission. As such, the Court considers this a concession on the merits and grants those motions, and limits its analysis to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further RFPs.

            In response to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel RFPs, Defendant indicated that it did not contest the majority of the motion. However, Defendant contended that “[r]equests Nos. 32, 34, and 36 seek production of the “employee files” of three current or former employees of Commonwealth, who are not parties to this action and whose employee files contain sensitive and confidential information that is not relevant to any issue in this action.” (Opp., 2: 5-8.)

California courts have recognized that the right to privacy encompasses confidential personnel information. (See, e.g., Tien v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 528, 539.) In order to overcome this right to privacy the party seeking production of private information has the burden of establishing that the documents sought are directly relevant, not merely that they may lead to relevant information. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525.)

            After review, the Court agrees with Defendant that further responses to these RFPs are not warranted. RFP Nos. 32,34, and 36 seek non-party Bernadette Kane’s employee file, and non-party Lisa Samuel’s CV and employee file. In support of these requests, Plaintiff advances only a conclusory argument that these employees were directly involved with the analysis and evaluation of the title documents and issue of the title report to Plaintiffs here and thus their “work history, job performance, writeups and/or complaints, if any, is information directly relevant to this action and factual allegations.” (Separate Statement, 24: 22-24.)

As such, the Court is without any basis for concluding that these employees’  work history, salary, and past performance is directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims here. In light of this, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish that the documents are sufficiently relevant to warrant an invasion of the right to privacy.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further is granted as to the RFAs and Form Interrogatories. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further is granted in part, denied in part as to the RFPs. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied as to RFP Nos. 32, 34, and 36, but granted in all other respects. In light of this conclusion, the Court declines to award sanctions at this time. 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  July    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.