Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV00389, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00389, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00389 Hearing Date: February 19, 2025 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Cecilia Yang Cheng v. Pearl Material, Inc. dba Thompson Building Materials, et al.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant Pearl Material, Inc.;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, Against Defendant Pearl Material, Inc.;

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Against Defendant Pearl Material, Inc.;

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant Opal Service, Inc.;

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, Against Defendant Opal Service, Inc.; and

6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Against Defendant Opal Service, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Numbers 16.9 and 16.10. Pearl and Opal shall serve further responses, without objections, within 10 days.

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions in the reduced amounts of $1,271.76 for each motion, comprised of 3.0 hours preparing the motion, multiplied by the hourly rate of $400.00, plus a filing fee of $71.76. Pearl and its counsel of record, Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP, must pay $1,271.76 in monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the Court’s order. Opal and its counsel of record, Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP, must pay $1,271.76 in monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the Court’s order.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, against Pearl and Opal, as to Request Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions as to Request Number 17 in Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, but GRANTS the motion as to Request Numbers 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 55, with the response to Request Numbers 31 and 32 limited to the time period from one (1) year prior to the date of the collision up to the date of the collision. To the extent any of the documents requested involve privileged communications between an insured and the insurer, or the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine, Pearl and Opal must provide a privilege log per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1). Pearl and Opal must provide their respective further responses, including responsive documents, within 10 days of the Court’s order.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions, as the Court finds that Pearl and Opal acted with sufficient justification in opposing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is an auto accident case. On February 6, 2024, plaintiff Cecilia Yang Cheng (Plaintiff) filed this action. On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint against defendants Pearl Material, Inc. dba Thompson Building Materials (Pearl), Opal Service, Inc. (Opal), Jorge Luis Vargas Villarreal (Jorge), and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. On November 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment naming Triumph Sales, Inc. (Triumph) as a defendant. Pearl, Opal, Jorge, and Triumph may be collectively referred to hereinafter as “Defendants.”

On December 13, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel further discovery responses from Pearl and Opal. The parties participated in an informal discovery conference on January 6, 2025. On February 4, 2025, Pearl and Opal opposed the motions. On February 10, 2025, Plaintiff replied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of responses 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:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

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

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), further provides that “[t]he 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Requests for Production of Documents

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of responses to request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), further provides that “[t]he 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 further response to a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Requests for Admission

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of responses to requests for admission, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (c), further provides that “[t]he 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 further response, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer sufficient. (Minute Order (1/6/25).)

Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, served on Pearl and Opal on July 3, 2024, specifically Form Interrogatory Numbers 16.9 and 16.10. Plaintiff contends Pearl and Opal’s blanket objections to highly relevant Judicial Council approved form interrogatories and refusal to provide substantive answers are improper and designed to obstruct Plaintiff’s discovery efforts. Plaintiff contends the interrogatories regarding prior claims and medical conditions or injuries of Plaintiff are directly relevant and proper subjects of discovery. Plaintiff contends the fact that these are form interrogatories favors requiring compliance.

In opposition, Pearl and Opal contend their objections were proper because Plaintiff is in the best position to her own claim history and information about her medical conditions, not them. Pearl and Opal also contend that documents generated by them, their liability insurer, or their legal counsel concerning Plaintiff’s claim history and health condition, to the extent they exist, are privileged because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation with Plaintiff. Pearl and Opal then contend that the instructions to the 16.0 series form interrogatories state that they should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery, which has not happened yet.

The Court disagrees with Pearl and Opal that identifying privileged documents is grounds for a proper objection here. “[T]he existence of a document containing privileged information is not privileged… If an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document.” (Hernandez v. Superior Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293, italics in original and internal citations omitted.)

The Court further disagrees with Pearl and Opal that Form Interrogatory Numbers 16.9 and 16.10 are improperly directed at them, as those interrogatories seek information regarding Plaintiff’s claim history. Plaintiff is entitled to know what information Defendants have regarding Plaintiff’s prior personal injury claims and the physical, mental or emotional condition from a health care provider (non-expert witness). Pearl and Opal have not presented facts which support a finding that they cannot provide substantive responses which comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.220’s requirement that the responding party provide responses as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If the defendants cannot answer an interrogatory completely, they must do so to the extent possible. If the defendants do not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, after making a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry, that defendant must indicate as much in its responses. Pearl and Opal’s objections lack merit.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Numbers 16.9 and 16.10. Pearl and Opal shall serve further responses, without objections, within 10 days.

Requests for Admission

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, specifically as to Request Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, served on Pearl and Opal on July 3, 2024. Plaintiff contends that Pearl and Opal’s objections are without merit. Plaintiff contends that the subject matter of these requests are relevant to this litigation and that these motions are required to foster the purposes of requests for admissions in California.

In opposition, Pearl and Opal contend that they gave code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, and that they indicated in response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 regarding these Requests for Admission that no depositions had been taken at that time as a basis for their inability to admit or deny the requests. Pearl and Opal contend that no depositions have been taken in this matter and that they have not retained any expert witnesses. Pearl and Opal contend that Plaintiff’s argument that Pearl and Opal have had years to uncover about the collision is not true, as Plaintiff filed its initial complaint in February 2024 and has not been investigating this matter for three years. Pearl and Opal contend that they appropriately objected to Plaintiff’s requests. Pearl and Opal contend that Plaintiff is requesting they admit liability, which is a question of law, and is being requested before Pearl and Opal have had an opportunity to conduct additional discovery.

The Court finds Pearl and Opal’s objections to Requests for Admissions, Set One, Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to be without merit. “[A] request [for admission] may ask a party for a legal conclusion. [Citations.]” (Grace v. Mansourian (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 523, 529.) “A party's contention may be the subject of discovery, but not the legal reasoning or theory behidn [sic] the contention. [Citations.]” (Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 5.) The fact that these requests for admission ask Pearl and Opal to admit or deny legal conclusions is not a proper basis for objection.

The Court also finds Pearl and Opal’s other objections to be without merit. The requests are clearly relevant to this lawsuit and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as they ask for information regarding the underlying collision that forms the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) None of these requests implicate attorney-client privilege or attorney-work product or call for an expert opinion. It is also unclear how these requests are overbroad or speculative, or implicate issues of foundation.

However, in lieu of admitting or denying the RFA, a party may respond by claiming inability (lack of sufficient information) to admit or deny the matter stated in the request. [CCP § 2033.220(c).] But a party responding in this manner must also state that a reasonable inquiry was made to obtain sufficient information: i.e., "a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter." [CCP § 2033.220(c) (emphasis added)]

Pearl and Opal’s responses state their inability to admit or deny the request and that a reasonable inquiry was made to obtain sufficient information. Thus, the responses are Code-compliant. Given that no depositions had been taken at that time, and initial discovery had only recently begun, the Court does not find that the responses were solely to evade discovery. However, the Court notes that defendants will at some point soon have to respond to Plaintiff’s requests.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, against Pearl and Opal, as to Request Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions.

Requests for Production of Documents

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, specifically as to Request Numbers 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 44, served on Pearl and Opal on July 3, 2024. Plaintiff contends Pearl and Opal assert blanket objections to highly relevant requests. Plaintiff contends the subject matter of these requests are directly relevant to the underlying collision. Plaintiff contends that documentation of communications regarding the collision, the employment, education, and driving history of the truck driver involved in an on-the-job collision, the condition of the truck involved in the collision, and the work conditions of the truck driver are relevant.

In opposition, Pearl and Opal contend that their objections were proper. Pearl and Opal contend that materials generated in anticipation of litigation, such as information learned by a claims adjuster, reports generated to a liability insurer, the liability insurer’s investigations, and the content of insurance claims falls under privilege. Pearl and Opal contend many requests seek irrelevant information, and seek documents that would better serve a claim for negligent hiring, retention, or training of an employee or negligent maintenance of a vehicle. Pearl and Opal contend many of the requests are overly broad in terms of time and scope and some requests are so broad that they would invade the privacy of Defendant Jorge relating to his employment and personal history, which have nothing to do with the accident. Pearl and Opal further contend Plaintiff has not provided sufficient facts to demonstrate good cause for demanding these documents.

The Court finds Pearl and Opal’s objections based attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and privacy well taken. Documents contained within an employee’s personnel file are protected by privacy rights, and employers generally may not waive their employees’ privacy rights and have a duty “to resist attempts at unauthorized disclosure.” (Bd. of Trustees v. Superior Ct. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526, disapproved on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 (Williams).) Plaintiffs seeking to compel production of employee personnel files must first show that the information is directly relevant, then they must show that there is a compelling need for the requested documents, and the information cannot be reasonably obtained through other sources. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at pp. 556-557; Harris v. Superior Ct. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665, disapproved on other grounds in Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th 531.)

The Court finds Request Number 17 problematic, as it seeks the entire personnel file of Defendant Jorge, which is subject to privacy protections. (Bd. of Trustees v. Superior Ct., supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at p. 526, disapproved on other grounds in Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th 531.) While the Court finds the requested documents sufficiently relevant, relevance by itself is not sufficient to overcome a privacy privilege objection. (See Life Techs. Corp. v. Superior Ct. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 651, disapproved on other grounds in Wiliams, supra, 3 Cal. 5th 531.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated a compelling need for this information since the crux of Plaintiff’s claims here is for negligence. (See First Amended Compl., ¶¶ MV-1, MV-2, GN-1.) Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that the information sought cannot be reasonably obtained through other sources. (See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at pp. 556-557.)

With respect to the remaining requests, the Court finds some of them implicate privileged documents, but are not necessarily privileged altogether. For example, Request Numbers 21, 22, 33, 39, and 40 potentially implicate privileged communications between Pearl and Opal and their attorneys and insurance carriers, which would be privileged. (Scripps Health v. Superior Ct. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 529, 533, 535.) To the extent these requests do implicate privileged communications, Pearl and Opal must provide a privilege log, and produce any non-privileged documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)

The Court finds none of Pearl and Opal’s remaining objections meritorious. Pearl and Opal did not demonstrate the amount of work that would be required to respond or that Plaintiff intended to create an undue burden to support their objections of overbreadth, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. (See W. Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Ct. In & For Los Angeles Cnty. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) The Court does not find any of the requests vague, ambiguous, or not reasonably particularized. It is also unclear to the Court how these requests are speculative or lack foundation. Additionally, the requests are sufficiently relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as they are directed to Defendant Jorge’s work as a truck driver for Pearl and Opal and the maintenance of their trucks, one of which was allegedly involved in the underlying collision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010; Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 70 [any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery].) As such, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause warranting further responses and production of responsive documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions as to Request Number 17 in Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, but GRANTS the motion as to Request Numbers 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 55, with the response to Request Numbers 31 and 32 limited to the time period from one (1) year prior to the date of the collision up to the date of the collision. To the extent any of the documents requested involve privileged communications between an insured and the insurer, or the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine, Pearl and Opal must provide a privilege log per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1). Pearl and Opal must provide their respective further responses, including responsive documents, within 10 days of the Court’s order.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Numbers 16.9 and 16.10. Pearl and Opal shall serve further responses, without objections, within 10 days.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, against Pearl and Opal, as to Request Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.