Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case 37-2022-00035158-CU-PO-CTL 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00035158-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - July 20, 2023

07/21/2023 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00035158-CU-PO-CTL DOE VS ARAIZA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court will hear from the parties as to Defendant Matthew Araiza's motion to compel the San Diego Police Department to produce videos.

Defendant Araiza's motion to compel further responses to requests for production from Plaintiff Jane Doe is GRANTED.

Defendant Araiza's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories from Plaintiff Jane Doe is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendant Araiza seeks further responses from Plaintiff to requests for production nos. 4 and 6-17, to form interrogatories nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.4, and to special interrogatories nos. 12 and 18-22.

As to the requests for production, the court agrees that Plaintiff's responses are not technically code-compliant, as they do not include a clear statement that Plaintiff will allow each request in whole or in part. Although the logical inference from a response like 'Responding Party will produce all documents within Responding Party's possession and control' is that the party will allow the production demanded, the code distinguishes between the statement of allowance 'in whole or in part,' and the statement that all non-objectionable responsive documents in the party's possession, custody, or control will be produced. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220 ['A statement that the party . . . will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production . . ., will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.'], underlining added.) The court also agrees that Plaintiff is required to provide a privilege log for any responsive documents she is withholding based on a privilege. If no such documents exist, it should be reflected in Plaintiff's responses to each request.

However, the court does not agree with Defendant Araiza's interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1031.280, subdivision (a), which states: 'Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.' The court understands this provision to mean that the documents produced in response to a request for production must be identified by reference to the request number, and not that the response to the request must identify the documents responsive to the request. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the requirements for responses to requests for production are set forth in a separate, earlier section, and does not include a requirement to identify the documents responsive to each request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2978255 14 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: DOE VS ARAIZA [IMAGED] 37-2022-00035158-CU-PO-CTL Accordingly, Defendant Araiza's motion to compel further responses to requests for production nos. 4 and 6-17. Plaintiff is ordered to provided verified code-compliant further responses consistent with this order, and to provide a privilege log.

As to the interrogatories, the court agrees with Defendant Araiza that Plaintiff must provide a verification in order to effectuate her supplementary responses. However, the court does not agree, for purposes of the specified interrogatories that are the subject of Defendant Araiza's motion, that there is any meaningful difference between supplementing the responses and amending the responses. It is true that changing an asserted claim (i.e., the claim for special damages set forth in Plaintiff's response to form interrogatory no. 6.2) would require an amended response instead of a supplemental response, because only an amendment can change the prior response by removing the claim, whereas a supplement merely adds to the response and leaves in place all prior statements. But the instant motion does not concern form interrogatory no. 6.2, and all other interrogatories at issue here involve a purported failure to provide sufficient information, and not validation of a substantial change in the nature of a prior assertion.

Notwithstanding the failure to provide a verification, Plaintiff's responses to form interrogatories 12.1 through 12.4 are code-compliant, as Plaintiff has provided the requested information or stated that the requested information is unknown to her. Defendant Araiza's claim that form interrogatory no. 12.3 does not provide information about subpart (d) is belied by the most recent supplemental response, which applies the same name, date, number, and address (if known) to subparts (a), (c), and (d).

With respect to the special interrogatories, it appears Defendant Araiza is satisfied with Plaintiff's supplemental response to special interrogatory no. 12, assuming a verification is provided. The remaining dispute involving special interrogatories nos. 18 through 22 centers on the topic of Plaintiff's sexual history and sexual interactions with third parties. The court agrees with Plaintiff that at the time she objected to interrogatories and provided her most recent supplemental responses, Defendant Araiza did not have court approval under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220 to inquire into this subject matter. And although the court has tentatively decided to allow limited inquiry into this subject matter (ROA #164), court approval has not yet been provided. Moreover, some of the special interrogatories are overly broad as phrased, particularly nos. 18 (sexual history from 2018 to the present), 19 (first sexual encounter), and 21 (total number of sexual encounters).

Accordingly, the motion is granted in so far as it requests verifications from Plaintiff, but denied in substance as to form interrogatories nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.4, and special interrogatories nos. 12, and 18 through 22. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verifications for her supplemental responses to the form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one).

The requests for sanctions are denied. Plaintiff's initial objections-only responses were a direct result of defense counsel's refusal to give Plaintiff's counsel a first extension, and the subsequent first supplemental responses were not so unjustifiably deficient that sanctions are warranted.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2978255 14