Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV24727, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Aurora Prado alleges that on July 7, 2018, she was walking up the ramp to her residence when the unsecured ramp slid backwards. Plaintiff lost her balance and fell to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. Plaintiff alleges the ramp was installed by Defendant National Seating and Mobility, Inc. (“National”).

On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant National alleging (1) negligence; and (2) neglect-Welf. & Inst. C. §15610.57. On February 10, 2021, Defendant National filed an answer to the complaint.

On April 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the 2^nd cause of action for “Neglect – Welf. & Inst. C. §15610.”

On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment naming Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“Kaiser”) as DOE 1. On April 21, 2023, Kaiser filed an answer to the complaint.

On October 24, 2023, the Court held an Informal Discovery Conference was held. The parties were unable to resolve their dispute regarding Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories 15 and 16 propounded on Kaiser.

On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses. On November 30, 2023, Defendant Kaiser filed an opposition to the motion to compel. On April 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a reply.

(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.

(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

(e) If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories and RFAs. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State the amount of money paid by YOU to NSM for ANY reason(s) over the ten-year period before the INCIDENT.

OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Objection is made to this interrogatory on the following grounds: (1) Painfully vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to time and scope and seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2) not reasonably particularized as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2031.240; (3) incomprehensible as drafted; (4) unreasonable invasion of privacy, seeks information protected from disclosure under the United States and California Constitution (Article I, Section I), and improperly calls for the release of private and/or proprietary information; (5) the burden of production is outweighed by any conceivable probative value; (6) the appropriate forum for the litigation of this dispute is arbitration as provided by contractual agreement. The Superior Court lacks statutory or common law authority to permit this interrogatory for any purpose and lacks jurisdiction to enter any orders in connection with underlying discovery request(s) presented by this interrogatory

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: State the amount of money paid by YOU to NSM for ANY reason(s) since the INCIDENT.

OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Objection is made to this interrogatory on the following grounds: (1) Painfully vague, mbiguous and overbroad as to time and scope and seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2) not reasonably particularized as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2031.240; (3) incomprehensible as

drafted; (4) unreasonable invasion of privacy, seeks information protected from disclosure under the United States and California Constitution (Article I, Section I), and improperly calls for the release of private and/or proprietary information; (5) the burden of production is outweighed by any conceivable probative value; (6) the appropriate forum for the litigation of this dispute is arbitration as provided by contractual agreement. The Superior Court lacks statutory or common law authority to permit this interrogatory for any purpose and lacks jurisdiction to enter any orders in connection with underlying discovery request(s) presented by this interrogatory

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Kaiser to Special Interrogatories Nos. 15 and 16. Plaintiff argues Kaiser’s objections are meritless and the requested discovery is relevant to Plaintiff’s allegation of an agency relationship between Kaiser and National and Defendant’s Fourth Affirmative Defense based on the independent negligence of third parties. Plaintiff also argues the discovery requested is relevant to bias and witness credibility. Plaintiff argues a number of the objections are so patently meritless, they were asserted in bad faith. These objections include “appropriate forum for the litigation of this dispute is arbitration” and “not reasonably particularized as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2031.240.” Plaintiff argues CCP §2031.240 does not even apply to interrogatories. Plaintiff asks that the Court impose sanctions in the amount of $2,805 against Plaintiff and her attorney of record.

Defendant argues that:” (1) the requests seek irrelevant private and confidential financial information; (2) it and National have already confirmed in discovery that there is no agency relationship between them; (3) it has offered to produce the supplier agreement between Defendant and National to confirm the lack of an agency relationship; (4) Plaintiff’s request for 15 ½ years of financial information is unjustified by Plaintiff’s claim that she is entitled to the discovery to establish bias or agency or to respond to Defendant’s Fourth Affirmative Defense based on the independent negligence of third parties; and (5) Plaintiff’s entire action is ultimately meritless because she should have been provided with a modular, fixed ramp as opposed to the portable ramp in 2017 and such a modular, fixed ramp is not covered by Plaintiff’s Medicare/Medi-Cal coverage.

In Reply, Plaintiff argues corporations do not have a right of privacy, which only applies to natural persons. Further Plaintiff argues that (1) Defendant fails to establish that any privacy right would trump Plaintiff’s right to discovery.; (2) she is entitled to discovery regarding the agency question, and she is not required to accept Defendants’ position that there is no agency, nor is she required to accept Defendants’ position that the supplier agreement negates any allegation of agency; (3) the relationship between Kaiser and National is an open question of fact and she is entitled to conduct discovery regarding it; (4) Defendant raises irrelevant points to the discovery dispute, such as Plaintiff’s Medi-Cal coverage. In summary, Plaintiff argues the Court should dispose of Defendant’s “garbage” objections with an order compelling further responses.

Defendant’s primary argument is that the special interrogatories are irrelevant. For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Generally, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.)

The payments Defendant Kaiser made to National could be a factor in assessing bias and, as discussed below, to a far lesser degree, determining the nature of their relationship, which is at issue based on both the complaint and the Fourth Affirmative Defense. Plaintiff alleges Defendants are agents of one another and alleges that Defendants are liable for each other’s acts based on Respondeat Superior. (Complaint, ¶¶4 and 8.) Defendant Kaiser claims in its Fourth Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff’s injuries are the independent conduct of third parties who are not its agents or employees. (Kaiser Answer, ¶6.) Whether National, the entity that allegedly provided the ramp, was an independent party or an agent of Kaiser is therefore relevant to the Fourth Affirmative Defense.

Moreover, Plaintiff is not required to accept Kaiser’s and National’s discovery responses denying existence of an agency relationship. Plaintiff is entitled to conduct her own discovery into the issue and make an argument, if a good faith basis exists to do, based thereon, nor is she required to limit her discovery to the supplier agreement. Plaintiff is entitled to test the representations made by Defendants regarding their own liability.

Defendant Kaiser’s objection that the financial information is confidential and private is unpersuasive. A corporate entity has limited privacy rights. (Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 797.) Where the corporation is an actual named defendant and the issues raised by the litigation involve the organization and ownership of the corporation, the interest in justice overrides the weak privacy interest at stake. (Id.) Defendant Kaiser fails to establish that the weak privacy interest it has in the payments it has made to National override Plaintiff’s interest in conducting discovery on the relevant issue of Kaiser and National’s relationship. This is especially true given that a Stipulated Protective Order is on file to limit disclosure and use of the information produced in discovery.

That all said, while the relevance of the information as to bias is reasonably clear, albeit as discussed below, not fully warranted to the degree requested, the Court is not clear how that information goes to establishing an agency relationship. So, to the extent the requested information is relevant, it is of tenuous relevance, albeit sufficient at this point to warrant limited response.[1]

In contrast to most of Kaiser’s objections, Kaiser’s objection based on overbreadth is meritorious. [2] As stated above, the nature of Kaiser’s relationship with National is relevant; but, that does not open the door to unlimited discovery regarding that relationship. See Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 43 Cal.App.4th 216, 224. The incident occurred in July 2018, and the ramp was installed “several months” before the incident. (Complaint, ¶¶10-11.) Discovery into the last ten years of Kaiser and National’s relationship is unjustified given the alleged injury and wrongdoing. As such, the Court hereby limits the scope of Special Interrogatory No. 15 to payments five years before the incident and Special Interrogatory No. 16 is limited to two years after the incident.

In light of Plaintiff’s partial victory, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. Defendant acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion, though Defendant is hereby admonished to be careful in its discovery responses (see footnote 2).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant Kaiser to serve further responses within 20 days to Special Interrogatories 15 and 16 in conformity with this order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16, limiting responses to five years before the incident and two years after the incident. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

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. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] While the Court is granting Plaintiff’s motion in part even though to a large degree the requested discovery appears to the Court to be “fishing,” it notes that responding to the requested discovery does not appear to be burdensome in the least.

[2] The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Kaiser’s objections are overstated. Is “painfully” vague somehow different from “just plain” vague? Moreover, the interrogatories are not vague at all. They are clear and unambiguous. Kaiser should refrain from editorializing in responding to discovery. Such conduct makes it look bad in the first instance and only worse when, as here, entirely misplaced.