Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 20STCV017248, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV017248    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: R

The unopposed motion to compel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Defendant served special interrogatories (SI) and requests for production (RFP) on plaintiff.  Plaintiff did not respond.  Defendant sent a letter to counsel asking about that but there was still no response.  Defendant then brought this motion to compel.  Plaintiff has filed no opposition.

On June 2, 2022, the trial court continued the trial but ruled that discovery cut offs were based on the original August 17, 2022 trial date.  While the discovery was timely served, the motion was not filed for a timely hearing (even based on the original motion papers).  To obtain a ruling, defendant must seek relief from CCP section 2024.020, which requires that discovery motions be set for hearing no less than 15 days before the initial trial date.  This is a question of power; the court cannot ignore this deadline.  (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568.)  Were defendant to file a motion for relief from section 2024.020, the court would likely grant it.

If the court were to consider the merits, at least tentatively based on the papers received to date it would grant in part and deny in part.

On the special interrogatories, the interrogatories invade the privilege on their face as to interrogatories 57-61, 63-69, 73, and 74.  SI 80 is unduly intrusive on its face unless psychiatric damages are being sought.  While there is authority for the proposition that as to SI all objections are waived, the court typically allows objections based on privilege to be asserted under these circumstances, and there is case law suggesting that such a ruling is within the court’s discretion.  Thus, the motion would be granted as to the interrogatories other than those listed above.  As to SI 80, the motion would also be granted, but a privilege could be asserted based on privacy.  As to all of the interrogatories for which this motion would be granted, all objections would be deemed waived other than privilege. 

On the RFP, the moving party must demonstrate that the request is proper before the motion can be granted.  On their face, requests seeking all documents to be offered into evidence invades the work product protection, at least until exhibit lists must be provided.  Thus, no response would be required as to RFP 48-51.  RFP 58 is only proper if plaintiff is seeking psychiatric damages; otherwise there is a privilege.  The motion would be GRANTED as to the RFP’s other than 48-51.  All objections other than privilege would be waived. 

The court went through its tentative thinking so as to (hopefully) avoid future motion practice on this subject.