Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV00067, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00067    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.         INTRODUCTION

            Before the Court is a follow-up motion on a previously granted motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. The background facts and procedural summary set forth in the Court’s order of October 13, 2022, are incorporated herein. In that order, Mageno was ordered to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories 23-25.

            Mageno provided further responses. Defendant Burgers #3 found her answer to Number 25 to be evasive or incomplete. The only pertinent objection was that the evidence sought may be subject to confidentiality agreements. In her further response, Mageno verifies that this is the case. No further response is therefore required.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300 governs motions to compel further responses to interrogatories. It provides as follows:

“(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:

(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.”

Motions must be made within 45 days of any response or supplemental response (Subdivision (c)) and must be accompanied by a declaration demonstrating the parties met and conferred to attempt informal resolution; they must also be accompanied by a separate statement or concise outline. (Subdivision (b).)

Subdivision (d) provides for the issuance of monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the court finds the party who would be subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make sanctions unjust.

III.      ANALYSIS

            A. Procedural Considerations

            This motion is timely as it was made within 45 days of service of Mageno’s supplemental responses. (Declaration of Michelle Leight, ¶9 and Exhibit 1.) Burger #3 sent an extensive meet and confer letter following receipt of Mageno’s supplemental responses. (Id. at ¶¶10-12 and Exhibits 2 and 3.) The motion also complies with the separate statement requirement.

            B. The Motion is Denied

            In the prior order, all objections to Interrogatory 25 were overruled with the exception of the objection that the information was protected by written agreement. Here is the language of the order:

            Interrogatory 25 asks Mageno to list the total amount of money she has received as a result of settling lawsuits in which she was a plaintiff since 2015. As an initial observation, Mageno’s privacy objection is at odds with her objection that the information is equally available to Burgers #3. To the extent the information is publicly available, she has not identified a protectable privacy right. Mageno’s objection that the information sought is subject to confidentiality pursuant to Evidence Code § 1152 is overruled. Burgers #3 is not seeking information concerning offers to compromise.

            All other objections, including relevance, are overruled. Discovery of amounts Mageno received in settlement of prior lawsuits may assist Burgers #3 in evaluating and settling the present action.

            In opposing this motion, Mageno raises a new argument: most if not all the cases she has settled are subject to confidentiality agreements. To the extent that is true, Mageno should so state in her further response. Otherwise, her further response to this interrogatory should state the amount she has received as a result of settling lawsuits.

            Mageno’s Supplemental Response:

After a reasonable and diligent inquiry, Plaintiff responds as follows: To the best of Plaintiff’ knowledge, Plaintiff is bound by the confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement executed in each lawsuit implicated by this interrogatory.

            Mageno provided a verification for this response. The response is code-compliant, in that it indicates Mageno engaged in a reasonable and diligent inquiry before responding. This response indicates that in every lawsuit she settled, each settlement agreement contains a confidentiality provision. This response is therefore full and complete, and no further response is required.

            Mageno’s counsel (David Fitzgerald) offers a declaration attached to which is a redacted settlement agreement from one of Mageno’s prior cases. Special Interrogatory 25 does not require the production of any documents.  At the most, the document confirms  that on least one occasion, Mageno settled an action pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. To make her evidentiary point Mageno would need to provide confidentiality agreements for every Unruh lawsuit she has filed. This is not necessary. Her verified response suffices.

            C. Sanctions

             Both parties request monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. Those requests are denied. The Court finds that this motion was neither made nor opposed without substantial justification.

IV.      CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Mageno’s supplemental response to Special Interrogatory #25 is sufficient. No further response is required. The motion is denied.  Mageno is ordered to provide notice.  

Dated:                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                                          MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                                 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT