Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01116, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV01116    Hearing Date: October 22, 2024    Dept: A

23CMCV01116 Taj A. Powell v. GEIS Construction West, Inc., et al.

Tuesday, October 21, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

I.        BACKGROUND

       Plaintiff alleges claims for premises liability and negligence arising from injuries Plaintiff sustained when he fell into an open access hole at Plaintiff’s worksite. Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint on February 23, 2024, substituting Defendant, Perez Construction Group, Inc., (“Perez” or “Defendant”) for DOE 9.

II.      ARGUMENTS

       Defendant Perez requests an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Defendant’s first set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents. Plaintiff served deficient responses on June 17, 2024, but Plaintiff refuses to serve supplemental responses to some of the requests at issue which remain deficient, despite defense counsel’s attempts to meet and confer.

       Plaintiff files a single opposition to all motions and requests an informal discovery conference with the court. Plaintiff has advised that no further responses or documents are being withheld.

       Defendant argues in reply that Plaintiff has not addressed the substantive merits of the motions but insists only that the responses are code compliant. Imposition of sanctions are warranted.

III.    LEGAL STANDARDS

       A motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents is proper where the requesting party believes the responses are incomplete, or a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive and/or objections are without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., sections 2030.300 subd. (a); 2031.310 subd. (a).)            

       The parties have met and conferred in good faith without resolution. (Adelman decl., ¶¶ 4-10.) Plaintiff served supplemental responses on July 26, 2024 but only to certain discovery requests and did not provide a privilege log. (Id. ¶ 12.) All three motions are addressed in this single tentative. The court denies Plaintiff’s request for an informal discovery conference as the issues raised are not complex, do not require the court’s assistance, and should have been resolved without motion practice.

IV.    DISCUSSION

A.      Form Interrogatories

No. 6.5(e). Costs to date for prescribed medication.

              Plaintiff initially did not answer subpart (e). The supplemental response does not provide a sum certain for costs incurred  but merely states “Worker's Compensation.” The response is evasive and non-responsive.

No. 8.8. Estimates for future lost income and calculations therefor.

              Plaintiff’s only response was “unknown.” Plaintiff has an obligation to respond fully and shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) Defendant is entitled to know the extent of future income loss; pleading ignorance alone is not sufficient. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 ["If a person cannot furnish details, he should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. He cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.")

B.   Special Interrogatories

No. 9. Contentions supporting Defendant’s liability for damages

              Plaintiff is apparently unable to articulate his theory of liability and objects stating that a response will require preparing an audit by referencing Plaintiff’s production of documents, and then pasting portions of Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff, however, is required to state evidentiary facts supporting those allegations. (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 301 ["A party responding to discovery requests may be required to state whether or not he or she makes a particular contention and to disclose the evidentiary facts underlying each such contention, as well as each allegation of his complaint or affirmative defense."].)

       It is not enough for Plaintiff to refer generally to documents from which the response can be gleaned. Plaintiff must “specify” the writings “in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) According to Defendant, Plaintiff referred Defendant to a 3,500-page document production without any specificity and without identifying what document responds to a which request. (Defendant’s Sep. Stmt. 12:17-18.)

       Plaintiff has not shown any authority for requiring Defendant to bear the burden of figuring out what evidence bears out Plaintiff’s allegations; this is Plaintiff’s burden to disclose upon request. Nor has Plaintiff shown with evidence how Plaintiff’s burden in providing a response is undue.

       Plaintiff makes this evasive and non-responsive answer at his peril as “Plaintiffs' unexcused failure or inability to comply with these requirements, with respect to any one or more defendant(s), may constitute an evidentiary basis for motions under CCP § 437c, and/or may result in such preclusive, terminating or other sanctions as may be shown to be appropriate.” (Hernandez at 302.)

No. 11. Identification of documents showing Defendant is responsible for damages.

              Plaintiff identifies medical records, none of which respond to the specific request for documents showing Defendant’s liability for those injuries. The reference to “workers’ compensation file” is evasive, non-responsive, and ambiguous.

       Nos. 19-20. Identify chronic medical conditions and providers over time.

              This interrogatory is overbroad as it is not limited to injuries that Plaintiff placed in issue by filing this complaint. It is a request for a general history of chronic medical conditions. A patient is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific injury; “the scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 [Lifetime medical history is not relevant].)

       In response to form interrogatories, Plaintiff identified injuries arising from this incident limited to the right knee, left ankle, back, and neck and pain and suffering secondary to those injuries. (Def. Mot, Ex. B, Response to Form Int. 6.3, .pdf p. 29:4-5.).

       No. 21. Identify primary care doctors in the last five years. 

       This interrogatory is also overbroad for the same reason as Defendant is not entitled to information of primary care providers who treated Plaintiff for injuries that were not placed at issue by this litigation.

       Nos. 22-23. Identify contact information for chiropractors and medical providers that Plaintiff has seen in the last five years.

       This interrogatory is also overbroad because the discovery of Plaintiff’s medical history is limited to treatment for specific injuries sustained in this lawsuit.

No. 24. Whether Plaintiff was a Medi-Cal beneficiary.

              This is a “yes” or “no” question that potentially discloses relevant sources of information. The information is relevant to the calculation of economic damages Plaintiff sustained, as medical billing relevant to injuries sustained in this lawsuit is likely to lead to admissible information. (Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 555 [“The reasonable value of Plaintiff’s economic loss is the amount that was negotiated, accepted and paid by the insurer.”].)

Request for production of documents

       No. 2-4. Written or recorded statements of witnesses and individuals involved in the lawsuit, about the incident at issue; correspondence from other than Plaintiff’s attorney,  that was sent to or received from anyone about the incident, circumstances and claimed damages.

       Plaintiff identified a list of income information, text messages, medical billing and records,  and the “workers’ compensation file” but no identification of the particular witness statements requested. Plaintiff also objected based on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Plaintiff is required to provide a privilege log identifying the document and that “clearly sets forth the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240.)

       Plaintiff has not substantiated his claim that the burden of providing documents are burdensome  oppressive, or harassing, considering Plaintiff was able to identify some documents and produce 3,500 pages (except the document requested).

       No. 5. Billing records supporting any claim of damages allegedly incurred.

       Plaintiff refers to a list of documents that are not necessarily confined to billing records. Instead, Plaintiff produced 3,500 pages of records. The response is not code compliant as “[a]ny documents demanded shall either be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280.)

       No. 6, 7. Maps, diagrams, videotapes, photos or other reproduction showing the scene of the incident and of any person or object involved in the incident and showing injuries or conditions claimed as damages; No. 9. Reports and investigative, police, and other reports of the incident.

        As with his response to No. 5, the response is not code compliant as the 3,500 documents were not produced in a manner that corresponded with the requested categories.

        No. 10. Evidence of lost earnings.

       While Plaintiff agreed to produce paystubs, the reference to the other categories of documents appear to be medical records including the entire workers’ compensation file. This response is not code compliant.

       No. 11. Documentation indicating that Plaintiff was a Medicare beneficiary at the time of the subject incident. No.12,16. Documentation that medical bills incurred for injuries as a result of this incident we paid by Medicare or Medi-Cal No. 13. Documentation notifying Medicare of the subject litigation. No. 14. Medicare liens for bills incurred as a result of injuries sustained in this case. No. 15, 17. Documentation indicating Plaintiff was a Medi-Cal or Medicare beneficiary at the time of the subject incident.

       This category is relevant for the same reasons, special interrogatory No. 24 is relevant and discoverable. This information is relevant to the calculation of economic damages Plaintiff sustained, as medical billing relevant to injuries sustained in this lawsuit is likely to lead to admissible information. (Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 555 [“The reasonable value of Plaintiff’s economic loss is the amount that was negotiated, accepted and paid by the insurer.”].

       Defendant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in preparing these three motions, as the vast majority of discovery at issue is discoverable. Only special interrogatories 19-23 are overbroad in scope of records requested.

       Accordingly, the court grants a fee award as follows:

V.      CONCLUSION

       Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s two motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified responses without objection to the discovery at issue as outlined in Defendant’s separate statement.

       Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is DENIED in part as Nos. 19-23 are overbroad in scope of the records requested. The motion is GRANTED in part as to all remaining special interrogatories described above. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further, verified, code-compliant responses without objection to those special interrogatories.

       Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED with respect to all document requests at issue. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further, verified, code-compliant responses without objection to the specific document requests identified in Defendant’s separate statement.

       All further discovery responses and corresponding document production identified above shall be served within 30 days. Plaintiff and counsel, Conlogue Law, LLP and Law Offices Of Parag L. Amin, P.C., jointly and severally, are ordered to pay Defendant within 30 days sanctions of $1,785 for all three motions plus $180, the total filing fee for three motions.