Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV04703, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV04703, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV04703 Hearing Date: October 25, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: October 25, 2023 TRIAL DATE: March 22, 2024

CASE: Carlos Johnson v. Katherine Aiton, et al.

CASE NO.: 20STCV04703

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Katharine Aiton

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Carlos Johnson

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff, Carlos Johnson, initiated this action against Defendant, Katharine Aiton, for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision.

On September 29, 2023, Defendant filed these motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel.

Plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendant replied.

II. LEGAL STANDARD TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310 parties may move for a further response to interrogatories and 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); 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

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).)

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 37-50, 55-58, and 61-67 and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 6-10 and 12. The Court addresses each discovery set in turn.

Special Interrogatories, Nos. 37-50, 55-58, and 61-67

These discovery requests seek information on Plaintiff’s sources of income and total income from 2013 to 2023. Plaintiff interposed a number of objections based on overbreadth, ambiguity, privacy, and privileged financial information. The objections lack merit. The discovery requests are not overbroad or ambiguous. Further, they seek relevant information to Plaintiff’s ability to perform occupational activities prior to and after the incident. For this reason, Plaintiff’s withdrawal of his loss of earnings claim does not moot the discovery. Plaintiff’s privacy and privilege concerns do not overcome Defendant’s need for the discovery.

Plaintiff also submitted evasive substantive responses. Plaintiff responded to Nos. 37, 38, 39, 48, 49, 50 that he was engaged in employment that was materially different in 2013-2015. As such, these discovery requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, as discussed, these requests are directly relevant to the range of Plaintiff’s occupational activities.

Plaintiff provided supplemental responses to Nos. 61-67. Plaintiff interposed an additional objection on the basis that these discovery requests seek information equally available to Defendant. Not so. Nos. 61-67 seek information within Plaintiff’s personal knowledge.

Request for Production of Documents, Nos. 6-10, and 12

Nos. 6-12 seek income tax returns and W-2 forms, documents relating to Plaintiff’s sources of income from 2013 to present, documents related to Plaintiff’s business, Networkingz, and documents related to any communications Plaintiff had with anyone regarding the incident.

In response, Plaintiff interposed meritless objections based on overbreadth, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, privilege. The discovery requests are not overbroad and are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. To the extent Plaintiff asserts privilege, Plaintiff must provide a privilege log. To the extent the discovery requests seek confidential information, Defendant has offered to sign a protective order.

Monetary Sanctions

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel. Given that Plaintiff has withdrawn his loss of earnings claim and the general recognition in case law of the privacy and privilege interests at issue with income tax returns and W-2 documents, the Court finds Plaintiff had substantial justification to oppose these motions. Accordingly, the Court declines to impose sanctions.

IV. CONCLUSION

The motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 37-50, 55-58, and 61-67 and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 6-10 and 12 within 30 days of this order.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Moving parties to give notice, unless waived.

Dated: October 25, 2023 ___________________________________

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

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.