Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV02085, Date: 2024-07-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02085, Date: 2024-07-08 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV02085 Hearing Date: July 8, 2024 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 7/8/24 TRIAL DATE: 6/30/25

Case #23CHCV02085

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Request for Production, Set 1)

Motion filed on 4/11/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant East Valley Towing, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Edward Sandstrom

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff Edward Sandstrom to provide further responses to Defendant East Valley Towing, Inc.’s Request for Production, Set 1, Nos. 7, 8 and 9. Additionally, East Valley requests sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $1,750.00.

RULING: The request for further responses is granted. The request for sanctions is denied.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5/24/22 between Plaintiff Edward Sandstrom (Plaintiff) and Defendant William Peterson (Peterson), an employee of Defendant East Valley Towing, Inc. (East Valley). Plaintiff claims to have suffered extensive injuries as a result of the accident. In this action, among other things, Plaintiff has included a claim for loss of income and loss of future earning capacity.

On 9/1/23, East Valley served Plaintiff with Request for Production, Set 1. (Herme Decl. ¶2, Ex.A). After granting several extensions of time to respond, Plaintiff served responses on 12/28/23. (Herme Decl. ¶3, Ex.B). On 1/24/24, East Valley’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding deficiencies in the responses. (Herme Decl. ¶5, Ex.C). On 2/16/24, Plaintiff served further responses to the requests. (Herme Decl. ¶6, Ex.D). East Valley still found deficiencies in certain of the further responses. Therefore, on 3/8/24, East Valley’s counsel sent another meet and confer message regarding the deficient responses. (Herme Decl. ¶7, Ex.E). On 4/9/24, Plaintiff served a second further response to the requests. (Herme Decl. ¶8, Ex.F). East Valley still found Plaintiff’s responses to Requests 7, 8 and 9 to be deficient. (Herme Decl. ¶9).

Therefore, on 4/11/24, East Valley filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to East Valley’s Request for Production, Set 1, Nos. 7, 8 and 9. Additionally, East Valley requests sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $1,750.00. Plaintiff has opposed the motion and East Valley has filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

A party responding to a request for production shall indicate that all responsive documents or things in a category in the responding party’s possession, custody or control to which no objection is being made will be produced. CCP 2031.220. Where a responding party indicates an inability to comply with a request, the party may state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the requested item; the reason the party cannot comply (the document/item never existed, has been lost or stolen, was inadvertently destroyed); or, if not in the possession, custody or control of the responding party, provide the name and address of anyone believed to have the document. CCP 2031.230. Further, any objections must identify with particularity the item or category requested to which the objection is being made. See Standon (1990) 225 CA3d 898, 901. If the responding party asserts a privilege, they must provide sufficient factual information to enable other parties to evaluate the claim of privilege, including, if necessary, a privilege log. CCP 2031.240.

CCP 2031.310 provides, in relevant part:

"(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

The subject document requests, numbers 7, 8 and 9, seek documents to support Plaintiff’s claim for loss of income and future earning capacity. As such, the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See CCP 2017.010. In his second further responses to these requests, Plaintiff has asserted meritless and/or unsupported objections. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the requests are not overbroad, burdensome, harassing, vague and/or ambiguous.

Plaintiff’s claim that he does not have to produce tax related documents (i.e., 1099 forms) because they are privileged based on his right to privacy under the United States and California Constitutions also lacks merit. The constitutional right to privacy is not absolute. Boler (1987) 201 CA3d 467, 473. A party implicitly waives their constitutional right to privacy related to discovery directly relevant to their claim and the essential and fair resolution of the lawsuit. Vinson (1987) 43 C3d 833, 842; See also Snibbe (2014) 224 CA4th 184, 196. By seeking to recover for loss of income and loss of future earning capacity, Plaintiff has placed his financial information at issue making the documents requested directly relevant to the claims in this action and discoverable. Such discovery may be permitted with certain conditions to protect Plaintiff’s privacy interests. See Williams (2017) 3 C5th 531, 552-553.

Plaintiff’s reference to FINRA and its website as having responsive documents is vague and ambiguous as Plaintiff fails to identify what documents may be in the possession of FINRA that would be responsive to the requests.

If Plaintiff claims that the only documents responsive to these requests are his 1099 forms, he must produce such documents so that East Valley can independently evaluate Plaintiff’s claims for loss of earnings and earning capacity. The Court also notes that if Plaintiff claims he has no other documents to support his claim for lost income and earning capacity (i.e., bank statements, invoices), he will be precluded from later introducing such evidence to support his claims.

Based on the foregoing, a further response and production in accordance therewith, subject to a protective order, is warranted.

The Court finds that sanctions against Plaintiff are not warranted due to East Valley’s failure to further meet and confer after receiving Plaintiff’s second further responses. The meet and confer correspondence sent regarding the initial responses and first further responses does not set forth the authority provided in the motion regarding Plaintiff waiving his right to privacy in the requested documentation based on his loss of earnings and earning capacity claims. (See Herme Decl., Ex.C, E). As such, the Court finds that imposing sanctions under the circumstances would be unjust. CCP 2031.310(h).

CONCLUSION

The request to compel further responses is granted. Counsel for the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the execution of a protective order, using the Los Angeles Superior Court Model Protective Order as a guide, regarding the production of any financial documents in response to these requests. Further responses and execution and submission of a proposed protective order is due within 20 days. Production of documents will be due within 15 days of the Court’s execution of the Stipulated protective order.

Sanctions are denied.

The Court notes that Plaintiff failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the opposition as required by CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.