Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV01035, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV01035 Hearing Date: November 6, 2023 Dept: P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an Unruh action. The facts concern the lease of a vehicle by Plaintiffs. They allege that Defendant California Auto Resources Service, Inc.’s (CARS) employee Andy Yan made comments to Plaintiff Boxiang Liu (Liu) reflecting animus based on his gender identity and gender expression and that Yan made physical threats to Plaintiff Chengguang Wu (Wu). Based on these allegations, the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges the following causes of action: (1) Violation of the Unruh Act; (2) Violation of the Ralph Act; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (4) Breach of Contract. The first three causes of action are brought by both Plaintiffs. The Fourth Cause of Action is brought by Plaintiff Liu only.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Boxiang Liu’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 1 Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
II. MEET AND CONFER
CCP section 2030.300(b)(1) requires a motion brought under CCP section 2030.300(a) to compel further responses to interrogatories to be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2030.300(b)(1).) The meet and confer declaration must be in compliance with CCP section 2016.040. (Id.) CCP section 2016.040 provides that a meet and confer declaration “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP § 2016.040.)
Counsel for Plaintiffs, Michael Chen, declares that he sent a meet and confer letter via email to Defendant CARS on July 1, 2023. (Chen Decl. ¶ 5, referencing Exh. D.) The letter identified which special interrogatories were at issue and why the objections raised were not valid in Chen’s opinion. Chen further declares that as of the time of the motion to compel further, he has received no response to his meet and confer letter. (Chen Decl. ¶ 6.) Chen’s declaration is sufficient for meet and confer purposes.
In opposition, CARS alleges that “Plaintiff did not make a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the issue.” (Opposition, p. 2: 20-21; p. 3: 15-16, p.4: 8-9, referencing Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432-433.) Obregon involved a motion to compel responses to interrogatories. Counsel for moving party sent a single brief letter to meet and confer with the other party. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432.) To the extent that CARS is alleging that Plaintiff did not adequately meet and confer, reference to a dissimilar case without explanation as to why the case is applicable on the facts now before the Court is insufficient. The letter sent by Michael Chen, counsel for plaintiff, identifies reasons supporting each of the four interrogatories and against the objections CARS made in response to the interrogatories. (Chen Decl., Exh. D.)
In sum, meet and confer requirements were met.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Law Governing Further Responses
Code Civ. Proc. Section 2030.300 (a) provides that when, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the demanding party deems (1) an answer to an interrogatory to be incomplete or evasive, (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 unwarranted or the required documents specification inadequate, or (3) an objection to be without merit or too general, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response. Subdivision (c) requires that such motion be made within 45 days of the verified response or any supplemental response. Subdivision (d) provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion unless it finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2030.300.)
B. Law Governing Privacy Objections
Case law has established that several areas of an individual’s life are entitled to privacy, among them are privacy in one’s financial records, medical records, and employment records. This privacy interest is not absolute, however, and must sometimes yield if a balancing of interests so requires. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 sets forth the process. First, a legally protected privacy right must be identified, in which the party has a reasonable expectation to privacy and the threatened invasion of which is serious rather than trivial. If these facts exist, courts must balance the invasion of that privacy with the competing interests. “Privacy concerns are not absolute; they must be balanced against other important interests. . . . Invasion of a privacy interest is not a violation of the state constitutional right to privacy if the invasion is justified by a competing interest. Legitimate interests derive from the legally authorized and socially beneficial activities of government and private entities.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 37-38.)
C. Law Governing Overbreadth Objections
Even though relevance is quite broad, it is not without limits. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.) Though the holding in Obregon does not directly concern the merits of the objections, it described the discovery requests there as “very broad” and stated that “their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case.” (Id. at 431.) “When discovery requests are grossly overbroad on their face, and hence do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need, a reasonable inference can be drawn of an intent to harass and improperly burden.” (Ibid, bolding added.) When that is the case, the burden is on the propounding party to “explain why interrogatories of such breadth are proper.” (Id. at 432.)
III. ANALYSIS
A. Discovery at Issue
At issue in this motion are Special Interrogatories #1, #2, #3 and #4. These four interrogatories are the entirety of the Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded by Plaintiffs.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY #1 – Identify by name, address, telephone number and position of CALIFORNIA AUTO RESOURCES SERVICE, INC.’s employees for year 2022.
CARS objects that this seeks irrelevant information, is not likely to lead to admissible evidence and implicates the privacy rights of third parties. (Chen Decl., Exh. B. p.14: 7-18.) In opposition, CARS is no longer arguing that the information sought is irrelevant. Instead, CARS makes the following objections: overbroad and violates the privacy interests of third parties. (Opposition, p.2: 1-21.) CARS objects that the discovery request is overbroad, as the incidents Plaintiffs allege occurred from July-September 2022, not the entirety of 2022. As such, CARS argues that Plaintiffs are not entitled to information as to Defendant’s employees for the entire year of 2022. (Opposition, p. 2: 9-10.) To the extent that CARS is arguing that the discovery request is overbroad because it seeks information about employees in all of 2022, the Court notes that the scope of discovery is broad and notes that Special Interrogatory #1 is appropriately limited to 2022, when the incidents at issue allegedly occurred. The Court declines to find Special Interrogatory #1 to be overbroad.
CARS also objects that producing the information requested would violate the privacy interests of the employees, arguing that Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of need for the information. (Opposition, p. 2:14-16.) CARS urges that Plaintiff Liu must demonstrate that the need for the information sought furthers a countervailing interest. (Opposition, p.2: 16-19, referencing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 40.) Specifically, CARS urges that the need for information as to all employees at CARS in 2022 has not been shown. (Opposition, p.2: 18-19.) However, this is not a correct summary of the privacy rule in Hill. The Court in Hill specifically provides that a part asserting a legally protected privacy interest must establish: “a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, supra at 40.) CARS urges that their “employees have a bona fide interest in the confidentiality of their contact information” (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p.14: 9-10) and that employees would not expect their information to be revealed in this lawsuit. (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p.14: 11-15.) As such, revealing their contact information would be a serious invasion of privacy. (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p. 14: 16-18.)
CARS’ objections to Special Interrogatory #1 are overruled and a further response is required.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY #2 – Identify by name, title, address and telephone number all officers, directors and owners of CALIFORNIA AUTO RESOURCES SERVICE, INC.’s for year 2022.
In response to Special Interrogatory #2, CARS makes the following objections: irrelevant, not likely to lead to admissible evidence and implicates the privacy rights of third parties. (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p. 14: 24-28.) In opposition, CARS is no longer arguing that the information sought is irrelevant. CARS objects that the special interrogatory is overbroad and violates privacy interests. In arguing that the information sought is overbroad, CARS makes the same argument as it did on objection to Special Interrogatory #1, that Plaintiffs are not entitled to employment information as to individuals employed by CARS for the entirety of 2022. (Opposition, p.2: 25-28.) As discussed above, this argument is not well-taken and the Court finds that the interrogatory is appropriately limited to 2022. CARS also argues that the interrogatory is overbroad as it seeks contact information as to all of the officers, directors and owners of CARS in 2022. (Opposition, p.2: 3-5.) To the extent that CARS is arguing that the interrogatory is overbroad on this basis, the contention alone is not enough.
CARS also objects that this interrogatory violates the privacy interests of third parties, as “Plaintiff has not shown the need for the information for the entire year of 2022 or the information regarding all of Defendant's officers, all of its directors, and all of its owners.” (Opposition, p.3: 12-14.) A party asserting a legally protected privacy interest must establish: “a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, supra at 40.) CARS urges that their “officers, etc., have a bona fide interest in the confidentiality of their contact information.” (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p.14: 27-28). Assuming arguendo that this statement is sufficient to establish a legally protected privacy interest, CARS does not then demonstrate that these officers, directors and owners have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances of this lawsuit. As such, CARS failed to establish a legally protected privacy interest.
CARS’ objections to Special Interrogatory #2 are overruled and a further response is required.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY #3 – Identify by name, address, telephone number and position of CALIFORNIA AUTO RESOURCES SERVICE, INC.’s independent contractors for year 2022.
CARS makes the following objections: irrelevant, not likely to lead to admissible evidence and implicates the privacy rights of third parties. (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p. 15: 5-16.) In opposition, CARS is no longer arguing that the information sought is irrelevant. In opposition, CARS objects to Special Interrogatory #3 on the basis that it is overbroad and seeks private information as to third parties. (Opposition, p.3: 18-28, p.4: 1-9.) In arguing that the information sought is overbroad, CARS makes the same argument as it did on objection to Special Interrogatory #1 and #2, that Plaintiffs are not entitled to employment information as to individuals employed by CARS for the entirety of 2022. (Opposition, p.3:22-23.) As discussed above, this argument is not well-taken and the Court finds that the interrogatory is appropriately limited to 2022. Similar to the objection raised as to Special Interrogatory #2, CARS argues that the interrogatory is overbroad as it seeks information as to all of the independent contractors for the relevant time period. (Opposition, p.3: 24-26.) CARS urges that Liu has not shown that “all of those individuals have information regarding the issues.” (Opposition, p.3: 26.) However, the scope of discovery is broad by design. There is no need for Liu to show that each and every independent contractor has information regarding the issues.
CARS also objects that this interrogatory violates the privacy interests of third parties, as “Plaintiff has not shown the need for the information for the entire year of 2022 or the information regarding all of Defendant's independent contractors.” (Opposition, p.4: 6-7.) A party asserting a legally protected privacy interest must establish: “a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, supra at 40.) CARS urges that their “independent contractors have a bona fide interest in the confidentiality of their contact information.” (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p.15: 7-8). Assuming arguendo that this statement is sufficient to establish a legally protected privacy interest, CARS does not then demonstrate that these independent contractors have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances of this lawsuit. As such, CARS failed to establish a legally protected privacy interest.
CARS’ objections to Special Interrogatory #3 are overruled and a further response is required.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY #4 – Identify by name of CALIFORNIA AUTO RESOURCES SERVICE, INC.’s employees who worked at 115 La Porte St. Arcadia, CA 91006 on September 28, 2022.
CARS makes the following objections: irrelevant, not likely to lead to admissible evidence and implicates the privacy rights of third parties. (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p. 15: 22-28, 16: 1-5.) On opposition, CARS is no longer arguing that the information sought is irrelevant. On opposition, CARS objects to Special Interrogatory #4 on the basis that it is overbroad and seeks private information as to third parties. (Opposition, p.4: 11-18.)
The Court notes that the request is not grossly overbroad on its face, as it is time-limited in scope to the singular day that Plaintiff Wu allegedly went to 115 La Porte St., Arcadia CA 91006 to request the refund and a copy of the rental agreement and instead received threats and insults.
CARS also objects that the information requested would violate the privacy interests of employees, arguing that Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of need. (Opposition, p. 4:14-16.) CARS urges that Liu must demonstrate that the need for the information sought furthers a countervailing interest. (Id., referencing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 40.) However, this is not a correct summary of the privacy rule in Hill. The Court in Hill specifically provides that a party asserting a legally protected privacy interest must establish: “a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, supra at 40.) A party seeking the information may prevail by “negating any of the three elements just discussed or by pleading and proving, as an affirmative defense, that the invasion of privacy is justified because it substantively furthers one or more countervailing interests.” (Id.) CARS urges that their “employees have a bona fide interest in the confidentiality of their contact information” (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p.15: 24-25) and that employees would not expect their information to be revealed in this lawsuit. (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p.15: 26-28.) As such, revealing their contact information would be a serious invasion of privacy. (Chen Decl., Exh. B, p. 16: 3-5.) To the extent that the Court considers this argument, the Court notes that the interrogatory is solely for the names of the employees working that day, not contact information.
Liu makes a good argument in favor of further response. Liu urges that “[e]mployees of Defendant who worked at 115 La Porte St. Arcadia, CA 91006 on September 28, 2022, are very likely to be percipient witnesses for the alleged verbal abuse and threat, which were the subject of this lawsuit.” (Separate Statement p.8: 20-22.) As such, a countervailing interest has been identified to justify the invasion of privacy.
CARS’ objections to Special Interrogatory #4 are overruled and a further response is required.
B. Sanctions
Liu requests a monetary sanction be issued against CARS for unsuccessfully opposing this motion to compel. Liu’s counsel, Michael Chen, declares that he spent 2 hours preparing this motion, expects 1 hour to be spent on replying to opposition and .5 hour to be spent attending the hearing. (Chen Decl. ¶ 7.) His hourly rate is $350. (Id.) He spent $61.65 on the filing fee for this motion. (Id.) The Court finds that the hourly rate is reasonable. The Court finds the 3.5 hours is a reasonable amount of time, for a total of $1,286.65.
Liu’s request for a monetary sanction is granted. The Court finds that CARS acted without substantial justification in opposing this motion.
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Liu’s motion to compel further responses to his first set of special interrogatories is granted. Defendant CARS is ordered to serve verified responses without objection, within twenty (20) days of today’s date.
Liu’s request for a monetary sanction is granted. CARS is ordered to pay a monetary sanction of $1,286.25 to Liu within thirty (30) days of today’s date.
Liu is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET L. OLDENDORF
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
|
I. INTRODUCTION
This action alleges civil rights and breach of
contract claims stemming from the lease of a vehicle from Defendant California
Auto Resources Service, Inc. (CARS). Plaintiff Boxiang Liu (Liu) alleges he
arranged for the lease of a vehicle to be used during a planned three month
stay in California with his pregnant wife.
Liu alleges that he made payments to the WeChat
account of Defendant Boan “Andy” Yan (Yan), an employee of CARS, to reserve the
vehicle. Upon arriving and taking delivery, Liu alleges he discovered defects
and mechanical problems with the vehicle and notified CARS. Liu alleges that he
negotiated with Yan via WeChat for return of the vehicle and refund of the
payment. He alleges it did not go well and that Yan used rude and vulgar
language, saying he “talked like a sissy.” Nevertheless, Liu (through his agent,
Plaintiff Chengguang Wu, “Wu”) returned the vehicle. Liu alleges that the next
day, through the use of a negotiator, Yan agreed to accept the return and to
provide a refund.
It is alleged that Liu tried for several weeks to
obtain the refund without success. Eventually, he alleges Wu went to CARS and
asked for a copy of the rental agreement and the refund. Plaintiffs allege that
Yan reacted by refusing to give him the rental agreement or refund and that he
threatened to beat Wu up. The police were summoned.
Plaintiffs allege that the refund has still not
been paid.
Based on these allegations, the operative First
Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges the following causes of action: (1) Violation
of the Unruh Act; (2) Violation of the Ralph Act; (3) Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress; and (4) Breach of Contract. The first three causes of
action are brought by both Plaintiffs. The Fourth Cause of Action is
brought by Plaintiff Liu only.
Before the Court is a
motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents, set one by Defendant
CARS. CARS served Plaintiffs Liu and Wu with Request for Production of
Documents, Set One by electronic service. Therefore, CARS is entitled to the
relief requested. The motion compelling a response to the request for
production is GRANTED.
II. LEGAL
STANDARD
“Any party may obtain discovery …. by
inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or
other property, and electronically stored information in the possession,
custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (CCP § 2031.010(a).) If a
party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sample was directed
fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order
compelling responses without objections. (CCP § 2031.300(b).) Moreover, failure
to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (CCP § 2031.300(a).)
“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering
that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney
advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (CCP §
2023.030(a).) Misuse of the discovery process include: “(b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its
specified procedures”, “(d) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized
method of discovery” and “(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without
substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.” (CCP §
2023.010(b), (d), (h).) Reasonable expenses under CCP section 2023.030(a)
include the time spent in researching and preparing the motion, as well as
court time and travel time spent in connection with the motion. (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.) “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 response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling, 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. (C.C.P. § 2031.300(c).)
III. ANALYSIS
i. Motion
CARS presents evidence that on January 16, 2023, it
served Plaintiffs with Requests for Production Set One by electronic service.
Responses were due February 15, 2023. On opposition, Plaintiffs contend that
they were never properly served with the requests for production. Specifically,
counsel for Plaintiffs contends that CARS’ counsel never confirmed the
appropriate electronic service address by email or phone. (Chen Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4.)
Pursuant to CCP section 1010.6, prior to effectuating electronic service on a
represented party, the other party must confirm the correct email address for
counsel being served. (CCP § 1010.6(b)(3).) However, it is indisputable that
the email address in question is the correct email address. It is the email
address listed on documents Chen filed on behalf of Plaintiffs before the
discovery requests were served. (See, e.g., 11/8/22 Complaint, 11/08/22 Civil
Case Cover Sheet.) It is the email address listed on documents after the
discovery requests were served. (See, e.g., 9/6/23 Notice of Posting of Jury
Fees, 10/24/23 Declaration of Michael Chen.) Chen acknowledged receipt of the
discovery requests. (Chen Decl., Exh. A; Motion, Exh. B.) As defendant CARS can
show that the discovery had been properly served, it is entitled to an order compelling
responses.
Additionally, plaintiffs provide no authority that
establishes failure to comply with CCP section 1010.6(b)(3) invalidates the
service.
Based
on the above evidence, CARS has established that Plaintiffs were served with a Set
of Requests for Production. Therefore, CARS is entitled to the relief
requested.
The
motion to compel responses to the Requests for Production, Set One is granted.
ii. Sanctions
CARS alleges that Plaintiffs’ failure to provide
responses to its discovery request constitutes a misuse of the discovery
process. (Motion, p. 5: 14-18.) This argument is well-taken, as the discovery
request was served on plaintiffs at the correct email address, plaintiffs
acknowledged the receipt, yet failed to respond. (See CCP § 2023.010(d).) Plaintiffs
do not allege that circumstances would make imposition of sanctions unjust, or
otherwise allege substantial justification.
CARS’ attorney, Michael G. York, avers that he spent
2.5 hours preparing this motion, and that he expects to spend 1 hour preparing
a reply and 1.5 hours on the hearing. (York Declaration ¶ 10.) His hourly rate
is $450. (Id.) He also indicates that a $60.00 filing fee was paid, for
a total of $2,310.00.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ failure to respond
to the discovery requests was a misuse of the discovery process. The Court
finds that the hourly rate is reasonable and 5 hours is a reasonable amount of
time. Accordingly, the Court grants sanctions in the amount of $2,310.00
against Plaintiffs, to be paid to CARS.
IV. CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
The motion by Defendant CARS for an order compelling
responses is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are ordered to
serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendants’ request for
production, set one, within twenty (20) days of today’s date.
CARS’s
request for sanctions is also GRANTED. Plaintiffs
are ordered to pay $2,310.00 in sanctions to Defendant CARS within thirty (30)
days of today’s date.
CARS
is ordered to provide notice of this order.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET L. OLDENDORF
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT