Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 20STCV24635 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff Joni Mariah Silva (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) and Movsisyan Andranik (“Andranik”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident occurring on September 11, 2018.

Defendant Lyft. filed motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories on November 22, 2022. Plaintiff opposes. This ruling addresses both motions.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

The Court finds that the motions are timely made. Lyft filed this motion within 45 days of the October 25 letter. (Kruska Decls., ¶7, Exh. E.) The Court also finds that moving Defendants have satisfied their obligation to meet and confer.

Defendant Lyft moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to special interrogatories, nos. 2-6, 14, 26-27, and 45-61.

No. 2 seeks information for each hospital emergency room where Plaintiff has been seen as a patient in a 10-year period before the incident. While, Plaintiff’s hospital emergency room visits may provide relevant information, the request should be limited to visits that involve injuries for which damages are sought in the instant action. Accordingly, the motion as to this request is GRANTED with modifications.

No. 3 seeks the same information for urgent cares. Similarly, the request should be limited to visits that involve injuries for which damages are sought in the instant action. Accordingly, the motion as to this request is GRANTED with modifications.

No. 5 seeks the same information for health care providers. Similarly, the request should be limited to visits that involve injuries for which damages are sought in the instant action. Accordingly, the motion as to this request is GRANTED with modifications.

No. 6 seeks the same information for pharmacies. Similarly, the request should be limited to visits that involve injuries for which damages are sought in the instant action. Accordingly, the motion as to this request is GRANTED with modifications.

No. 14 seeks information regarding payments by Plaintiff for medical expenses, reduced rates, and health care plans participated in. Plaintiff provided a compilation/summary of her medical costs, reductions, co-pays and EOB documentation. Plaintiff elected to proceed by CCP § 2030.230 given the nature of the interrogatory. This appears satisfactory. The motion as to this request is DENIED.

No. 26 seeks information regarding money received from any person as a result of the incident and the dates payments were received. Plaintiff objected this request on the basis of collateral source rule and privacy rights. Plaintiff did state that she is receiving SSA disability payments due to the incident and would provide the amount being received. This appears sufficient. The request is grossly overbroad as well. As Plaintiff points out, if Plaintiff receives money from a friend, how is that relevant to the issue? The motion as to this request is DENIED.

No. 27 seeks essentially who made the payments from request no. 26. Accordingly, the motion as to this request is DENIED.

Nos. 45-57 seeks identification of pictures and videos of Plaintiff engaging in various activities such as trips, walking, hiking, working out, dancing, singing, dining, at a bar, at a public gathering, attending shows/events, and modeling since the incident. Plaintiff has objected to these requests based on relevancy and privacy rights. With regard to any documents that are public, this is readily available to Defendant. Thus the motion as to any requests that are public documents is DENIED. With regard to non-public documents, identification of these documents appears broad without further information from Defendant regarding the extent of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff responded to Special Interrogatory No. 13 stating that she has difficulty with her activities of daily living due to chronic pain throughout her body including lifting objects, bending, ambulating, concentrating, focusing, standing for long periods of time, exercising, and vision issues.” (Kruska Decl., Exh. B.) While this provides some insight into the extent of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, Defendant bases its request on Plaintiff’s deposition testimony regarding the extent of her injuries. Defendant is to provide the relevant deposition testimony for the Court to ascertain the extent of the injuries claimed and the relevance of the identification of documents sought, as well as any limitations in scope that must be placed. Accordingly, the motion as to these requests is CONTINUED for Defendant to provide the relevant testimony.

No. 58 requests documents related to Plaintiff’s personal taxes from the last 10 years. Plaintiff objected to the request based on relevancy and privacy rights. Plaintiff produced employment records which address Plaintiff’s loss of earnings claim. The Court finds the request overbroad and an invasion of privacy. Defendant has not shown how the relevancy outweighs Plaintiff’s privacy rights, especially given the production of the employment records.

Nos. 59-61 request Plaintiff’s usernames associated with her Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook accounts. Plaintiff objects on the basis of relevancy and privacy rights. However, Plaintiff has admitted that her accounts are public, thus any right to privacy is essentially waived. Further, this would make the discovery of any pictures or statements relevant to the damages and injuries sustained in this action less burdensome for Plaintiff. The motion as to these requests is GRANTED.

Defendant Lyft moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, nos. 11.2, 12.2, and 12.3.

No. 11.2 seeks information regarding claims or demands for workers’ compensation benefit in the past 10 years. Plaintiff responded that she had a work-related injury in 2015. This answer is insufficient. Plaintiff must fully answer the question and each subsection to the best of her ability. The motion is GRANTED as to this request.

Nos. 12.2-12.3 request information regarding individuals interviewed by Plaintiff regarding the incident, and who Plaintiff has obtained a written or recorded statement from regarding the incident. Plaintiff objected based on attorney work product privilege. However, this does not appear to request privileged information as it only requests who the statement was made by or interviewed, to whom, when, and who has a copy of the statement. This is not attorney work product. Further, if Plaintiff believes anything is privileged, a privilege log should be provided. The Court also notes these are standard requests. The motion is GRANTED as to these requests.

Where the court grants a motion to compel further responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Defendant’s request for sanctions for the motion for further responses to special interrogatories will be determined at the continued hearing date.

Defendant’s request for sanctions for the motion for further responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED as the motion is granted in its entirety. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $735, based on 3 hours preparing the motion and attending the hearing at counsel’s hourly rate of $225, and a $60 filing fee.

Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and CONTINUED in part.

Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is to provide further responses to the requests for which the motions were granted within 20 days of the issuance of this order.

Plaintiff and his counsel of record are to pay $735 to Defendant Lyft, Inc. within 20 days of the issuance of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court