Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV13833, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13833    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint: 4/12/21

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿ 

Department 27¿ 

Tentative Ruling 

Hearing Date:                 3/6/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿¿ 

Case No./Name.:            21STCV13833 DANA ZOULIN vs VLADIMIR SYELSKY

Motion Name:                 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO

Moving Party:                 Defendant VLADIMIR SYELSKY

Responding Party:          Plaintiff DANA ZOULIN

Notice:                            Sufficient¿¿ 

¿¿ 

Ruling:                           DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Background

On 4/12/21, Plaintiff Dana Zoulin filed the present auto accident case alleging that Defendant Vladmir Syelsky rear-ended her. The Complaint details that Plaintiff suffered injuries, incurred medical bills, will need future medical treatment, and experienced loss of earnings and earning capacity, along with pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and other ongoing damages. (Complaint ¶ 20). On October 30, 2023, Defendant propounded Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Special Interrogatories (Set Two). (Nguyen Decl.; Exhibit A). On December 22, 2023, following several extensions, Plaintiff responded to the discovery requests at issue. (Nguyen Decl.; Exhibit B). Between December 26 and 29, 2024, the parties engaged in extensive meet-and-confer efforts but ultimately hit an impasse. (Nguyen Decl.; Exhibit C). On January 31, 2024, the parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference. The court found the issues were not resolved and instructed Defendant to proceed with the present Motion. (Nguyen Decl.; Exhibit D).

Legal Standard

A party responding to requests for inspection must either provide a statement of compliance, represent that it lacks the ability to comply, or object. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210.) When a party propounding demands for inspection deems responses to be incomplete or evasive, or deems objections to be without merit, the propounding party may move for an order to compel further responses. Such motion must set forth facts showing good cause for the discovery, be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, and include a separate statement. Such motion must also be made within 45 days of verified responses or supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date the parties have agreed to in writing. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(a)-(c).) 

 Analysis

A. Meet and Confer 

The Parties have met and conferred and participated in an IDC, yet the disputes remain unresolved.

B. Discovery Requests at Issue 

Request for Production No. 28: Seeks all documents supporting Plaintiff’s contention of emotional distress.

See analysis below re RFPs 29-34.  However, unlike those RFPs that appear to be primarily seeking medical records, this request is clearly broader in regard to the type of record requested.  The Court orders further response that is directly related to the incident and is not a medical record.  For instance, if Plaintiff has a text to a friend after the accident indicating that she feels anxious all the time because of the accident, that would reasonably be a document to be produced. 

Requests for Production Nos. 29-34: These requests seek documents relating to Plaintiff’s mental health, and appear to primarily relate to medical records.

A party seeking access to privileged medical records may only have those directly relevant to those specific conditions the plaintiff has raised in the case. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 863-864.) A plaintiff’s right of privacy remains protected as to physical and mental conditions unrelated to the claim or injury sued upon. (Id. at p. 864.) Further, the burden is on the party seeking the discovery to demonstrate that the information sought is directly relevant. (Id. at 859-862.) A “garden variety” emotional distress claim seeking damages for “pain and suffering” associated with the injuries sustained in an automobile accident does not place plaintiff’s mental condition in issue. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008,1016.)  In an auto accident case where plaintiff alleges emotional distress as a result of the incident, plaintiff’s right to privacy in his or her post-injury psychotherapeutic records outweighs any need for discovery of that information. (Id.)

Defendant seeks medical or psychotherapeutic records but has not demonstrated evidence that Plaintiff is claiming anything beyond garden variety emotional distress. The complaint only contains Plaintiff's allegations of pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life due to the accident. (Complaint ¶ 20.) Furthermore, Plaintiff's declaration attached to Defendant’s reply brief states that Plaintiff suffers only from physical injuries and emotional distress from the incident. Defendant has failed to produce any deposition transcript or evidence showing Plaintiff suffers from severe ongoing anxiety, depression, stress, and ADHD as a result of the incident. Without evidence to suggest Plaintiff's claims exceed garden variety emotional distress, Defendant's motion to compel further responses to RFPs 28-34 is hereby DENIED.

Special Interrogatories Nos. 36 and 37: Seek facts or witnesses supporting Plaintiff's claims of emotional distress.

While contention interrogatories are allowed under CCP § 2030.010(b), the interrogatories at issue are overly broad as they fail to be tailored to the incident.  The Court thus limits these interrogatories to the incident alleged in the Complaint.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to interrogatories 36 and 37 regarding her claims of emotional distress as a result of the incident alleged in the complaint.

Special Interrogatories Nos. 38-44: Seek information regarding Plaintiff’s mental health.

Defendant has not provided any evidence to suggest that Plaintiff is alleging anything beyond garden variety emotional distress as claimed in the complaint. Therefore, the identification of Plaintiff’s therapists or any psychiatric issues are deemed irrelevant, private, and/or privileged. Consequently, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories 38-44 is denied.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:     

·                If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.       

·                Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.       

·                If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.