Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2018-00970710, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
2. Motion to Compel Production

Motion No. 1:

Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant Avco Corporation to Serve Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Set No. 2, and Imposition of Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300m subd. (c).)

Defendant’s evidence offered in opposition fails to establish that this motion is moot.

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. (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Plaintiff’s opposition fails to justify the objections in the disputed responses, and/or the objections lack merit.

Defendant Avco is ordered to serve complete, non-evasive further responses without objections to plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Set No. 2 within ten (10) days.

The court imposes monetary sanctions against defendant Avco Company in the sum of $3,180.00, payable to counsel for plaintiff within thirty (30) days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Defendant Avco Corporation’s Motion for Order Allowing Defendant to Obtain Plaintiff’s Airman Medical File Maintained by FAA is ordered OFF CALENDAR.

Defendant fails to cite any authority for the proposition that this court has jurisdiction to issue an order compelling a federal administrative agency to provide records in violation of its own regulations governing the release of records to the public. 

Congress gave the power to all federal departments (by 5 U.S.C. § 301) and all federal agencies (by 44 U.S.C. § 3101) to make their own rules concerning the retention and release of their own records, and whether their employees would testify concerning information acquired in the course of their duties. Appellate courts have ruled that these federal records and such testimony are beyond the power of the states and their courts. 

With respect to federal agencies in general, the federal privacy act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 precludes a federal agency from disclosing its records without the prior consent of the person who is the subject of the records, unless disclosure is sought “pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Federal departmental and agency rules, made under 5 U.S.C. § 301 and 44 U.S.C. § 3101 insulate federal records and employees beyond the jurisdiction of state subpoenas (U.S. ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 71 S. Ct. 416, 95 L. Ed. 417 (1951); F.B.I. v. Superior Court of Cal., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2007). An agency’s decision to withhold information from state courts can be challenged. The appropriate means for challenging a department's decision not to respond to a request is an action under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.) in federal court.

The court lacks jurisdiction to rule on this dispute between defendant and the FAA.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is ordered off calendar as well.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.