Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00510, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV00510 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F-47
Date: 8/21/24
TRIAL DATE: 1/27/25
Case #23CHCV00510
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Form
Interrogatories, Set 1)
Motion filed on 12/29/23.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Santa Clarita
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Elizabeth E. Bence
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and
denied, in part.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out Plaintiff Elizabeth E. Bence’s (Plaintiff)
claim that she sustained injuries when she tripped and fell over a raise in the
sidewalk at Meadow Heights Court in the City Santa Clarita. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges a
cause of action against Defendant City of Santa Clarita (Defendant/City) for
dangerous condition of public property under Government Code 835 and a cause of
action against City employees under Government Code 840.2. Plaintiff seeks damages for her claimed medical
injuries and damages allegedly caused from the fall.
On 10/12/23, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form
Interrogatories, Set 1. (Marr Decl.,
Ex.1). On 11/13/23, Plaintiff served
responses to the interrogatories which included only objections to Form
Interrogatory 2.3. (Id.,
Ex.2). Meet and confer efforts failed to
resolve the issues Defendant had with Plaintiff’s response to Form
Interrogatory 2.3. (Marr Decl., Ex.4-5). Therefore, on 12/29/23, Defendant filed and
served the instant motion which seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide
a further response to Form Interrogatories, Set 1, No.2.3. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions
against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney of record in the amount of
$1,527.50. Plaintiff has opposed the
motion and Defendant has filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
The scope of discovery is broad allowing a party to
obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the
subject matter of the action or to the determination of any motion therein, if
the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP 2017.010.
If a party which propounded interrogatories finds the
responses to be deficient, including that an objection is without merit or too
general, it may file a motion to compel further responses. CCP 2030.300(a)(3). Once a timely motion to compel further
responses is filed, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify its
objections. Williams (2017) 3
C5th 531, 541-542; Fairmount Insurance Co. (2000) 22 C4th 245, 255; Coy
(1962) 58 C2d 210, 220-221.
Here, Form Interrogatory 2.3 asks Plaintiff whether she
had a driver’s license at the time of the incident/fall and, if she did, to
state: the state or other issuing entity, the license number and type, the date
of issuance and all restrictions. In
response to the interrogatory, Plaintiff stated that because “this case does
not involve an automobile accident, Plaintiff objects to the interrogatory on
the grounds that it is overbroad, burdensome, and constitutes and [sic]
invasion of privacy and not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant
evidence.” The opposition to the motion
focuses on the privacy portion of the objection.
To establish that the information sought invades her
right to privacy, Plaintiff must show: (1) a legally protected privacy
interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy; and (3) a serious invasion
of that right. See Hill
(1994) 7 C4th 1, 39-40; Loder (1997) 14 C4th 846, 893. Plaintiff fails to meet this burden. Rather, Plaintiff merely concludes, without applying
the law to the facts of this case, that “information related to Plaintiff’s
driver’s license, is protected by Plaintiff’s constitutional right to
privacy.” (See Opposition,
p.1:25-26, p.2:24-p.4:22). However, it
has been held that “[i]nformation contained on a driver’s license does not give
rise to a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Driver’s licenses are
displayed routinely for purposes of identification.” People v. Herrera
(1981) 124 CA3d 386, 389.
Additionally, a response to the interrogatory may
establish restrictions, limitations, or revocation of Plaintiff’s driver’s
license which relates to Plaintiff’s physical and cognitive condition. In this action, Plaintiff claims physical and
cognitive impairment from traumatic brain injuries following the fall. Information regarding preexisting conditions,
which may be discerned from a proper response to Form Interrogatory 2.3, is
relevant to causation and damages. As
such, the information sought in Form Interrogatory 2.3 meets the relevance
standard set forth in CCP 2017.010.
As shown in the reply, Defendant has attempted to obtain
Plaintiff’s driver’s license and the information sought in Form Interrogatory
2.3 through other means without success.
(See Reply, p.2:16-p.3:6, p.3:20-26; Marr Reply Decl.).
Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied because it does
not comply with the requirements set forth in CCP 2023.040 which provides:
“A request for a sanction shall, in
the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom
the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of
motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and
accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any
monetary sanction sought.”
Here, the notice of motion requests sanctions against “Plaintiff
and/or Plaintiff’s attorney of record” without identifying the specific
attorney against whom the sanctions are sought as required by CCP 2023.040. (See Motion, p.2:7-10). The responses to the Form Interrogatories
were signed by attorney Krystale Rosal of Fiore Legal, Inc. who also responded
to Defendant’s meet and confer letter and prepared the opposition to the motion. However, Plaintiff’s attorney of record in
eCourt is listed as Mauro Fiore of the Law Offices of Mauro Fiore. As such, it is not clear against whom the
sanctions are sought.
CONCLUSION
The request for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide
a further response to Form Interrogatory 2.3 is granted. A further responses is due within 15
days. The request for sanctions is
denied.