Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01026, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV01026 Hearing Date: March 12, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV01026
Maya Lugardo Sabino v. Uber Technologies, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES SERVED ON DEFENDANT, MIKE MAN KIM, AND REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION
OF SANCTIONS
I.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from an automobile accident causing personal injury to Plaintiff,
whose vehicle collided with Defendant, Mike Man Kim’s (“Kim” or “Defendant”), vehicle
while he was employed by Defendant, Uber Technologies. Plaintiff alleges that
at the time of the incident, Kim was distracted by the Uber App, and that the
Uber App blocked Kim’s view. Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for
negligence.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff
argues she served Defendant Kim with a first set of special interrogatories on
August 29, 2023. Defendant objected to the interrogatories at issue. Defendant
refuses to provide substantive responses despite Plaintiff’s attempt to meet
and confer.
In
opposition, Defendant Kim contends that his
objections were appropriate. The interrogatories are overbroad, vague, and seek
irrelevant private information from Defendant Kim. Defendant referred Plaintiff
to the Traffic Collision Report which is permitted.
In
reply, Plaintiff reiterates that the information sought is within the broad
scope of discovery. Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant over the last
five months. The amount of sanctions requested is reasonable.
III.
DISCUSSION
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 subd. (a).) A civil litigant’s right to discovery is
broad. (Code
Civ. Proc., §2017.010.)
The
discovery statutes “must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless
the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for
denial.” (Williams
v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 [“disclosure is a matter of
right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.”].)
At
issue are the following special interrogatories:
A.
#24 requesting identification of vehicles Kim
used for purposes of employment in the last two years.
Plaintiff
states that Defendant, Rasier, LLC, revealed in discovery responses that Kim
was involved in three other traffic collisions while active on an UBER application.
(Wong decl., ¶ 10, Ex. 8.) The request is overbroad to the extent Plaintiff
intends to discover prior similar accidents. The interrogatory is not confined
to Kim’s employment as an Uber driver. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the
relevance of Kim’s general use of a vehicle for non-specific employment.
B.
No. 25 requests identification of employment
hours missed as a result of the impact.
While Defendant
has not filed a cross-complaint for any injuries suffered in the same accident,
Plaintiff explains that the information is relevant to demonstrate the severity
of the collision. Accordingly, the information is relevant to establish
Plaintiff’s damages.
Contrary
to Kim’s objection, the interrogatory does not assume facts regarding Kim’s
employment status. Kim has not established why this information is protected
from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, or constitutes
confidential or proprietary information. Kim is ordered to provide a further
response.
C.
No. 26 requests the date and time that Defendant
Kim first returned to work after the collision.
Like
No. 25, this request is relevant to establish the severity of the impact, which
in turn is relevant to Plaintiff’s damages. The interrogatory does not assume
anything in connection with whether Kim was an Uber employee or an independent
contractor as Defendant contends. Like Defendant’s response to No. 25, Kim has
not established why this information is protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, or constitutes confidential
or proprietary information. Kim is ordered to provide a further response.
Plaintiff is
entitled to imposition of monetary sanctions where a party unsuccessfully
opposes a motion unless there is substantial justification for Defendant’s
conduct. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2030.300 subd. (d).) Defendant’s objections to Nos. 25 and 26
are without merit as noted above.
Plaintiff
requests monetary sanctions of $2,535.00 at $550 per hour which the court
reduces to $350 per hour given the non-complexity of this discovery motion. Plaintiff
contends that four and a half hours were spent to prepare the motion, reply,
and to appear. The court reduces the time allotment to two hours which the
court finds reasonable.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special
interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Kim is ordered to provide further,
verified responses without objection to special interrogatories 25 and 26 within
10 days. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the relevance of interrogatory No. 24.
The
court imposes reduced sanctions of $700 ($350 x 2) and $60 in filing fees
against Defendant Kim and his counsel, Jeff I. Braun, and Sarah A. Pavlik,
jointly and severally, and payable to Plaintiff within 10 days.