Judge Nathan Vu, Case 30-2022-01284501 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2022-01284501, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Discovery

Plaintiff Robert T. Clawson’s Motion to Compel Defendant Theodore G. Laurent’s Further Verified Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.

Defendant Theodore G. Laurent is ORDERED to serve full, complete, and verified responses to Special Interrogatory Number 1 within 15 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff Robert T. Clawson (Plaintiff Clawson) moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory Number 1 propounded on Defendant Theodore G. Laurent (Defendant Laurent).

Standard to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

A party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

“Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f) [making evasive response to discovery is misuse of discovery process].) Where the question is specific and explicit, it is improper to provide only a portion of the information sought or “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) “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.” (Id. at p. 782.)

The Civil Procedure Code instructs the responding party that: “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but 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)

The Discovery at Issue

Plaintiff Clawson seeks further responses to Special Interrogatory Number 1, which reads as follows: “Please identify (name, address, and account number) any and all bank accounts that held the funds on your behalf from the sale of the house located at 8662 Pacheco Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683.”

Defendant Laurent responded by asserting the following objection: “Objection. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of constitutionally protected confidential financial information.”

The California Constitution grants Californians a right to privacy, which “protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 360, 370.) To evaluate claims of invasion of privacy, including in the context of discovery requests, a court should apply the analytical framework that the Supreme Court set forth in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1:

First, the claimant must possess a legally protected privacy interest.

Second, the claimant must have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the particular circumstances, including the customs, practices, and physical settings surrounding particular activities.

Third, the invasion of privacy must be serious in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact; trivial invasions do not create a cause of action.

(Id. at pp. 35-37; see also Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 40 Cal. 4th at pp. 370-371.) If the party claiming the privacy interest meets these criteria, then the court must balance the privacy interest at stake against other competing or countervailing interests. (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 40 Cal. 4th at pp. 370-371.)

In addition, if a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Here, Defendant Laurent failed to file an opposition or otherwise explain how he meets the requirements of the test laid out in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n. Defendant Laurent thus fails to meet his burden to justify his objection or his failure to answer Special Interrogatory Number 1.

Defendant Laurent also has waived any arguments on this issue. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 288 [failure to address or oppose issue in motion constitutes waiver of that issue]; see also Wright v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 998, 1011 [“it is clear that a defendant may waive the right to raise an issue on appeal by failing to raise the issue in the pleadings or in opposition to a . . . motion”].)

In any case, the information requested in Special Interrogatory Number 1 is relevant. Plaintiff Clawson alleges that Defendant Laurent wrongfully sold the Pacheco Property and used the sales proceeds to purchase a mobile home. (See First Amend. Compl., ¶ 6.) The interrogatory thus is relevant to establish how the sales proceeds were utilized.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.