Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 20LBCV00504, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20LBCV00504    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, Tokio Marine America Insurance Company filed this action against Defendant, Prestig, Inc. for carrier liability under the Carmack Amendment.  Plaintiff filed its original complaint on 11/19/20 and its operative First Amended Complaint on 1/19/21. 

 

Plaintiff alleges it insured Panasonic Corporation.  Defendant received a shipment of 1024 cartons of lithium ion batteries from Panasonic in Carson and was charged with taking the shipment to Kansas City.  However, the rig carrying the batteries was involved in a single vehicle accident, resulting in the vehicle over-turning and damaging the batteries.  Plaintiff alleges it suffered loss in the amount of $620,199.27, as it had to pay its insured for the damage to its goods.

 

2.     Motion to Compel Further Responses

a.     History of Discovery Dispute

Plaintiff propounded RPDs on Defendant, and Defendant served responses.  The parties met and conferred, and Defendant supplemented some of its responses.  RPDs 14-18 remain in dispute, and Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to these five RPDs.

 

b.     RPDs and Responses

RPDs 14-18 seek production of driver logs relating to the shipment for the three days before and after the accident, DOT required records for the driver and rig moving the shipment, telematic information relating to the truck that transported the cargo, downloads from the electronic logging device for three days before and after pickup of the cargo and delivery of the cargo, and electronic data interchange information relating to the shipment from three days before pickup to three days after shipment of the cargo. 

 

Defendant responded to each of the RPDs by objecting on the ground that the RPDs violate the privacy of a non-party to the litigation, improperly seek information regarding non-parties that is not relevant to the action, and failed to comply with CCP 1985.4(a)(1) and 1985.6. 

 

c.     Relevance

Defendant takes the position that the RPDs do not seek relevant information because liability for Plaintiff’s loss is statutory and governed by the Carmack Amendment, and the Carmack Amendment is a strict liability statute that does not require a showing of negligence.  It contends it has not asserted any affirmative defenses, and therefore negligence is not at issue in this lawsuit.

 

Plaintiff, in its reply, agrees that a prima facie case under the Carmack Amendment can be made by merely showing a cargo loss, but provides authority for the position that a defendant can assert various defenses, which including making a showing that there was no negligence.  Plaintiff contends Defendant has not asserted any affirmative defenses because Defendant has not yet filed an answer; it filed a special motion to strike, appealed the trial court’s ruling on the motion, lost the appeal, and now has a demurrer pending for hearing.  The Court has reviewed its docket, which shows Defendant does not have an answer on file.  Unless Defendant agrees, at the hearing, that it will not assert any affirmative defenses when it ultimately files its answer, the Court will find the RPDs seek relevant information. 

 

d.     Right to Privacy

Defendant next argues the requested documents violate the right to privacy of the driver of the truck.  Defendant cites authority for the position that personnel records are subject to a right to privacy.  It is not clear, in the first instance, that the type of records being sought constitute “personnel records” that are subject to the right of privacy.  Even if they are, the right to privacy is not absolute, and can be overcome by a showing that the need for the subject documents outweighs the right to privacy.  See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.  The documents Plaintiff seeks by way of this motion are so highly relevant to this action that the need for the documents clearly outweighs any right to privacy.  The documents sought are narrowly tailored and relate only to the subject transportation, and any invasion of the driver’s right to privacy is de minimus. 

 

e.     RPDs to Non-Party

Defendant argues at length that Plaintiff is not permitted to propound RPDs on a non-party.  Defendant seeks to be contending that the documents at issue are in the possession of either the driver of the truck and/or another entity, Prestige Transportation, Inc.  CCP §2031.210(a)(2) permits a party responding to an RPD to state, by way of a verified response, that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand.  §2031.230 then specifies what information must be provided if the responding party indicates any inability to comply with the demand.  If Defendant truly does not have the requested documents, it is free to state that it does not have the documents and to provide a code-compliant explanation of why it does not have the documents.  Plaintiff has clearly propounded these RPDs on a party to the action, and Defendant must respond. 

 

c.         Conclusion

Defendant is ordered to provide full and complete responses to the RPDs at issue, without objections, within fifteen days.  The Court notes that Plaintiff does not seek imposition of sanctions in connection with the motion, and none are imposed.  Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.