Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00372, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV00372    Hearing Date: November 21, 2023    Dept: A

23CMCV00372 James Shayler v. Guanda LLC

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

      The complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffers from physical disabilities and was unable to access Defendant’s establishment because of constructed-related barriers. Plaintiff alleges claims for violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act.

      Defendant served form and special interrogatories to Plaintiff on May 23, 2023. Plaintiff responded on July 31, 2023, but refused to provide information of other claims Plaintiff filed in the last 10 years (Form Interrogatory 11.1). Plaintiff also refused to provide his social security number and his Medicare Health Insurance Claim Number. (Special Interrogatories 23 and 24). 

Defendant argues that the information is relevant to the litigation.

      Plaintiff asks for a stipulation to continue the hearing because Plaintiff mis-calendared the date for the hearing. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. Plaintiff has previously provided photographs to support his claims. Defendant is not entitled to SSN or MHIC information as it violates Plaintiff’s privacy.

      In reply, Defendant argues that the Court should not consider the opposition which was filed late. Defendant’s counsel was unable to adequately file a reply brief.

      A party can move to compel a further response to interrogatories where the party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a); § 2031.310(a).) The Code requires that responses to interrogatories shall be complete and straightforward as the available information permits, it should be answered completely or to the extent possible, and must affirm that the party does not have personal knowledge as applicable but is obligated to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.)

      The scope of discovery is liberally construed in favor of disclosure “as a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 377-378.) The broad scope of permissible discovery includes “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

A.      Late opposition

      The Court has considered Plaintiff’s late opposition filed on November 15, 2023, although it was due on November 7, 2023, nine court days before the hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b). Considering late papers promotes the strong policy favoring disposition of the case on the merits. (Kapitanski v. Von’s (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32.) [“Judges are well aware of the unnecessary burdens placed on courts and counsel when strict compliance with local procedural rules results in the expenditure of unnecessary time and money for the preparation of later section 473 motions.”]

      Defendant filed a reply brief without addressing the opposition in substance. If Defendant contends it will suffer prejudice as a result of the late filing, the Court has discretion to continue the hearing. (Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 30.) Defendant does not request a continuance of the hearing, however, defense counsel requests that the Court order further responses. Absent a request for a continuance, the Court is inclined to consider the late opposition and resolve the issues on the merits.

B.      Form Interrogatory 11.1

      This interrogatory requests information for any action Plaintiff filed or a written claim or demand for compensation for personal injuries in the past 10 years. Plaintiff has made this question relevant since the complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a “high frequency litigant” who has filed over 10 complaints during the last 10 months alleging a construction-related accessibility claim. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) Defendant is entitled to information about those express allegations. Plaintiff has not supported that the 10-year scope of information is unreasonable.

C.   Special Interrogatories 23 and 24

      Defendant requests Plaintiff’s Social Security Number and Medicare ICN. These questions will potentially reveal confidential matters not relevant to this litigation including, for example, Plaintiff’s financial, tax, and employment information as well as access to all of Plaintiff’s medical records, all of which are subject to Plaintiff’s right of privacy. The right protects against compelled disclosure of employment personnel records, tax records, medical records and personal financial records pertaining to topics not placed in issue by filing the complaint. (White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757) [constitutional privacy]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141[tax and related records; Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516 [personnel records]; SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 754 [personal financial information.].)

      Where privacy rights are implicated, the requesting party must show that the records sought are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and are essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.)  The burden falls on the party asserting privacy to establish the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.) Against that showing, the Court must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies. (Id.) The Court considers the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure, and whether there are less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755.)

      Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff’s allegation that he is a “high frequency litigant” entitles Defendant to a wide breadth of personal information unless Defendant can show how that particular information is directly relevant. Speculation over what the records might contain does not support the burden of showing “direct relevance.”(Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1017.)

V.   CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory 11.1 is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide a further, verified response, without objection, within 10 days. As Plaintiff has not provided substantial justification for failing to respond to an interrogatory made material by the complaint’s allegations, imposition of sanctions is warranted. The Court finds that $375 per hour for this type of motion and one hour to prepare the motion are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court imposes total sanctions of $436.65 (including filing fees of $61.65) against Plaintiff, James Shayler, and counsel Joseph R. Manning/Manning Law, APC, payable to Defendant within 10 days.

      The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, 23 and 24.