Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2022-00040622-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 18, 2024

01/19/2024  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Fraud Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00040622-CU-FR-CTL WHITE VS JUNKIN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 11/14/2023

Defendant Cyti Psychology PC's motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

A. The motion is denied as moot as to requests 1-9, 31-36, and 69-74. Verified supplemental responses have been provided. (Kirby Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. 2.) Any challenge to the sufficiency of the supplemental responses or to plaintiff's representations of compliance must be resolved by future motion. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310, 2031.320.

B. The motion is denied as to requests 13, 16-17, and 19-20. Sufficient responses have been provided.

The court declines to order plaintiff to remove the objections preceding her substantive responses.

C. The motion is denied as to request 18. This request was not set forth in the separate statement.

CRC 3.1345(c)(1).

D. The motion is denied as to requests 26-28, 41-50, 52-56, and 58. As currently drafted, requests 26-28, 41-43, 52-56, and 58 are overbroad in time and/or scope. In addition, the court is not persuaded that requests 44-50, which seek documents regarding plaintiff's traveling and leisure activities, are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case.

E. The motion is granted as to requests 29-30, 51, and 62-63. Plaintiff's objections are overruled. The requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not overbroad. See Children's Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1276 ('For discovery purposes information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.'). Moreover, while the court agrees that requests 29-30 implicate the privacy interests of plaintiff's former and current clients (Grafilo v. Wolfsohn (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1034), those concerns can be addressed by redacting any identifying information. See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 38 ('[I]f intrusion is limited and confidential information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to know, privacy concerns are assuaged.'); see also McGovern v. BHC Fremont Hospital, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 181, 159 (approving redaction of third party identifying information to 'minimize any intrusion into a patient's privacy rights with respect to confidential information').

F. The motion is denied as to request 57. A sufficient response has been provided to this overbroad request.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051256  61 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WHITE VS JUNKIN [IMAGED]  37-2022-00040622-CU-FR-CTL G. In sum, plaintiff is directed to serve further verified responses to requests 29-30, 51, and 62-63 and produce any documents responsive to these requests by February 2, 2024. Given the sensitive nature of the documents and the privacy interests at stake, the documents must be produced pursuant to the parties' protective order (ROA 39) and with the identifying information of plaintiff's former and current clients redacted. If plaintiff is withholding any documents on the basis of privilege, it must provide sufficient factual information for defendant to evaluate the merits of the claim, 'including, if necessary, a privilege log.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(c)(1).

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051256  61