Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2021-01204202, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four

Plaintiff, Gail Parrish’s (Plaintiff) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four (Motion), Nos. 43, 44, 45, 47, 48 and 49 is DENIED.

On receipt of responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection is without merit or too general or an answer is evasive or incomplete. Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)-(3).  The moving party must also include reasons why further answers should be ordered: legal or factual arguments why the answers given were incomplete or nonresponsive, or the objections invalid.  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)  The responding party has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses.  Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255. 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be filed within 45 days of service of the verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, with additional time allowed for the manner of service.  Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013, subd. (a); 2030.300, subd. (c).  The 45-day requirement of Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.300, subdivision (c) is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on a motion to compel further responses to discovery other than to deny the motion.  Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Special Interrogatories, Set Four, numbers 43, 44, 45, 47, 48 and 49. These interrogatories ask Defendant to identify whether other claims have been made to Defendant’s insurance policy for the policy period in which Defendant tendered the claim about Plaintiff to the insurance carrier. If other claims have been made, Defendant is asked to respond with further information about these claims, such as “the attorney representing each claimant who has made claim.” (see Separate Statement in Support of Motion [ROA 503], 9:18-21.)

Plaintiff contends further response is required because information regarding Defendant’s insurance coverage is generally discoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210.

Defendant contends further response to each interrogatory is not required because the interrogatories seek information beyond the scope of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210.  Further, Defendant asserts that the interrogatories are overbroad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and impermissibly seek information about Defendant’s financial condition in violation of Civil Code section 3295.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 states: “A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. This discovery may include the identity of the carrier and the nature and limits of the coverage. A party may also obtain discovery as to whether that insurance carrier is disputing the agreement's coverage of the claim involved in the action, but not as to the nature and substance of that dispute. Information concerning the insurance agreement is not by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at trial.”

“Evidence of a tort defendant's liability insurance is generally unrelated to a party's claims or defenses at trial; hence the common law rule has long been that such insurance coverage evidence is inadmissible at trial… Section 2017.210 nonetheless creates a statutory exception that allows limited discovery of a defendant's liability insurance coverage as a matter of right; that is to say, without the need for a threshold showing of relevancy and admissibility as is required under the general discovery statute, section 2017.010.” Catholic Mutual Relief Society v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 358, 366-367 (Catholic Mutual Relief).

“‘For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement....” [citation] Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 591.

In Snell v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 44, 46-47 (Snell), Plaintiff in a malpractice action sought discovery, including “whether hospital required staff physicians and/or physicians who had surgical privileges to carry malpractice insurance during the year 1982.” The court found that the court properly denied a motion to compel further responses to this discovery, because “In our view, the question of whether a hospital is negligent in investigating a physician's background and competence, and in maintaining adequate evaluation procedures, is, at best, only tenuously connected to the question of whether it requires its physicians to carry malpractice insurance.” Id. at 50.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant is liable for damages by breaching its duties to Plaintiff under the Elder Abuse Act and by negligently hiring and supervising its staff. Based on these claims and the reasoning in Snell, the court finds that a further response to the interrogatories at issue in this motion is not warranted because information about other claims made to Defendant’s insurance during the applicable policy period is at best, tenuously related to Plaintiff’s elder abuse claims. Plaintiff has also not made a showing that the specific information requested by these interrogatories will assist Plaintiff in preparing for trial or otherwise evaluating the case. Further, information about these other claims is not a category of insurance information specifically provided to be discoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210.

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.  Having denied Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant to give notice.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five

Plaintiff, Gail Parrish’s (Plaintiff) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five, Nos. 50 and 51, is GRANTED in part as set forth below.

On receipt of responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection is without merit or too general or an answer is evasive or incomplete. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)-(3). The moving party must also include reasons why further answers should be ordered: legal or factual arguments why the answers given were incomplete or nonresponsive, or the objections invalid.  Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).  The responding party has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses.  Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255. 

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.300, subdivision (c), a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be filed within 45 days of service of the verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, with additional time allowed for the manner of service.  Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013, subd. (a); 2030.300, subd. (c).)  The 45-day requirement of Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.300, subdivision (c) is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on a motion to compel further responses to discovery other than to deny the motion.  Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory numbers 50 and 51. These ask Defendant to identify and provide contact information for all of Plaintiff’s roommates and their responsible parties on 4-29-21, the day of Plaintiff’s alleged fall. Defendant did not respond to either interrogatory and objected that no response was required because responsive information is protected by these residents and responsible parties’ right of privacy, the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the California Medical Information Act (CMIA).

Plaintiff argues that witness contact information is not protected health information under HIPAA or CMIA. Pursuant to Civil Code section 56.10, even if an individual’s name and address constituted medical information, it may still be disclosed pursuant to court order. Further, Civil Code section 56.05 states that medical information pertains to a “patient’s medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment.” Contact information does not fall into this category.45 C.F.R. section 164.512 also provides explicitly that contact information of witnesses is discoverable and not protected when it is disclosed pursuant to a court order.

Plaintiff also argues that generally, contact information of witnesses is discoverable. Plaintiff cites to cases, including Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12 (Smith) for this argument, as well as West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 416.

On 3-28-22, the court previously granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories pertaining to resident and responsible party contact information and ordered the following opt-in process:

“the Court orders Defendant to provide the names and address of the witnesses to the third-party service within 30 days of this order. The third party is ordered to not disclose the provided information to anyone absent the express written assent and authorization of the individual. The third party service should be provided a copy of this order. The third party will send to each individual the letter and response card attached hereto as Exhibits “9” and “10” of the Reply. In Exhibit 10 a signature line needs to be inserted in order for the party to give express consent. Additionally, the “Draft” watermark should be removed. The third party service will only provide the contact information if the response card is checked, signed, and dated. Plaintiff is ordered to pay all costs of the third party mailing house and both parties are to include opposing counsel on all written communications to the third-party mailing house except for the disclosure of the witness contact information.” (ROA No. 329.)

Defendant contends the instant Motion must be denied because Plaintiff presumably only filed it because previously identified residents and responsible parties declined to opt-in when previously ordered. Defendant additionally contends a response to these interrogatories is not required because its privacy, HIPAA and CMIA objections have merit.

In reply, Plaintiff’s counsel Stephen Garcia represents the opt-in process was not completed as previously ordered. Specifically, Mr. Garcia attests: “On May 11, 2022, CPT Group completed the mailing of letters and response cards to all residents and responsible parties during the specified time period. On June 1, 2022, CPT Group shared a link with a list of postcards received as of June 1, 2022. Upon review of said list by defense counsel, it was brought to the attention of CPT Group and Plaintiff’s counsel that the names of five individuals who did not wish to have their information shared with Plaintiff’s counsel were inadvertently included on the list. Plaintiff’s counsel responded advising while the list had been downloaded by staff, no lawyer in Plaintiff counsel’s office had looked at the list. Plaintiff’s counsel also assured defense and CPT Group that the list was deleted from Plaintiff counsel’s system. Plaintiff counsel requested for CPT Group to remove the names as appropriate and resend the information. Defense counsel and CPT Group discussed the release of contact information and proposed that any returned postcards be sent directly to defense counsel who would then provide contact information to Plaintiff’s counsel. As this modified proposed process is not what the Court Ordered and in effect makes the third party process meaningless, Plaintiff’s counsel did not agree to same. Plaintiff’s counsel requested that the process proceed as previously ordered.” (Garcia Reply Decl., ¶ 3.)

Therefore, the Court finds further response to these interrogatories is required. Defendant’s argument these interrogatories are duplicative because Plaintiff must be seeking information about witnesses who chose not to opt-in is without merit. Defendant does not represent to the court that it provided information about all residents and responsible parties at the facility to the third-party service as previously ordered. Further, it does not appear from Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration that the opt-in process was satisfactorily completed, as the parties appear to still be in the process of finalizing the final contact list for the residents and responsible parties at issue. Defendant does not dispute that the identity and contact information of Plaintiff’s roommates and their responsible parties is relevant as potential witness contact information.

Further, Defendant’s arguments that they are not required to respond to these interrogatories on the grounds of privacy, HIPAA, or the CMIA fail for the reasons stated in the court’s prior ruling of 3-28-22.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted. The Court orders the parties to comply with the opt in process as previously ordered on 3-28-22 for all individuals responsive to these interrogatories.

Further, Defendant is to file a declaration no later than 10 days after Defendant has provided all responsive contact information to the third-party service, averring to Defendant’s compliance with the opt-in process.

Given the parties’ ongoing meet and confer efforts regarding the opt in process, the court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification such that sanctions are not warranted in this instance.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Status Conference

Regardless whether the parties submit on the tentative to the court’s ruling on the motions above, counsel for the parties are required to appear, either in person or remotely, for the Status Conference.