TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar:    10  

Date:          5/17/2024  

Case No: 24 GDCV00103 Trial Date:  None Set 

Case Name: Gharabigi, et al. v. Gharabyan  

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Moving Party: Defendant Narine Gharibyan    

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Jozef Gharabigi and Meganoush Azarjeh 

RELIEF REQUESTED:

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiffs Jozef Gharabigi and Meganoush Azarjeh allege that in May of 2023 their vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle being operated by defendant Narine Gharibyan while defendant was speeding and failed to keep proper distance.  Plaintiffs allege that defendant caused damages to plaintiffs, as they sustained injuries to their health, strength, and activities and injury to their nervous system, and have suffered property damages, loss of earnings and other damages. 

The form complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. 

ANALYSIS:

Defendant seeks a protective order to protect defendant from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment or oppression or undue burden and expense, arguing that the 57 specially prepared interrogatories propounded by plaintiffs are excessive and duplicative. 

CCP § 2017.020 (a) provides:

(a) The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

CCP § 2019.030 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) The court shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method provided 

in Section 2019.010 if it determines either of the following:

(1) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

(2) The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

(b) The court may make these determinations pursuant to a motion for a protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

In connection with interrogatories, CCP §§ 2030.090(a) provides:

“When interrogatories have been propounded, the responding party, and any other party or affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” 

CCP § 2030.090(b) provides, in pertinent part:  

 “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: 

(1) That the set of interrogatories, or particular interrogatories in the set, need not be answered.

(2) That, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2030.050, the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted.”

With respect to protective orders generally, the burden of showing good cause is ordinarily on the party seeking the protective order. Beverly Hills Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court (1961, 2nd Dist.) 195 Cal.App. 2d 861, 866-867.   The granting of a protective order is within the discretion of the trial court.  Id.  The granting or denial of a protective order is reviewed for abuse of discretion.   See Meritplan Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 237, 242.  When the record shows facts on which the trial court exercised its discretion, this exercise will not be disturbed on appeal.  Foster v. Gillette Co. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 569, 578.

Defendant argues that where a responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the burden is on the propounding party to justify the number of interrogatories, in reliance on CCP section 2030.030. 

Under CCP section 2030.030 (a)(1) a party may propound to another party “Thirty-five specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.”

Under subdivision (b), 

“Except as provided in Section 2030.070, no party shall, as a matter of right, propound to any other party more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories.”

CCP section 2030.040 permits the propounding of more than 35 special interrogatories with a supporting declaration:

“(a) Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order under Section 2030.090, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as described in Section 2030.050 may propound a greater number of specially prepared interrogatories to another party if this greater number is warranted because of any of the following:

(1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

(2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition.

(3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.

(b)   If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.”

CCP section 2030.050 provides requirements for the declaration for additional discovery, requiring “a declaration containing substantially the following...” including paragraphs stating:

“4.   I have previously propounded a total of _______ interrogatories to this party, of which ______ interrogatories are not official form interrogatories….

 “8.  This number of questions is warranted under Section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure because __________ (Here state each factor described in Section 2030.040 that is relied on, as well as the reasons why any factor relied on is applicable to the instant lawsuit.)”

5.  The number of questions is warranted under subdivision (a) of Section 2030.070 of the Code of Civil Procedure because; 1. The number of existing and potential issues and causes of actions raised by Plaintiff and Defendant; 2. The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide my client with information necessary to adequately prepare for trial; 3. the appropriateness of this discovery device (interrogatories) - to have Defendant set forth facts that may require investigation and consultation with other persons-over a deposition wherein the deponent would not have the opportunity to conduct an investigation and consult with other persons; 4. The savings in cost of this type of discovery over taking depositions; and 5. The financial burden on my client in taking depositions.

[Exs. A, B, Declaration for Additional Discovery, paras. 3, 5]. 

“4.   I have previously propounded a total of _______ interrogatories to this party, of which ______ interrogatories are not official form interrogatories….”

Defendant also argues that the declaration does not sufficiently explain why so many special interrogatories are warranted.  Defendant argues that this case is not a complex, complicated or novel, but it arises out of an alleged rear-end motor vehicle incident in which plaintiffs claim to have suffered injuries and damages.  Defendant argues that there are no facts supporting plaintiffs’ conclusory statements that the case involves a number of existing/potential issues and causes of action, that obtaining the information requires investigation/consultation not available at deposition, or that the additional discovery is not propounded for the purpose of harassing defendant, as required under statute.  

The declarations primarily consist of a statement of the factors, without supporting details.  However, with respect to factor (3) of CCP section 2030.040 (a), which states: “The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.  The declarations are deficient.  The declarations explain that this factor is furthered because of “the appropriateness of this discovery device (interrogatories) - to have Defendant set forth facts that may require investigation and consultation with other persons-over a deposition wherein the deponent would not have the opportunity to conduct an investigation and consult with other persons.” [Decls., para. 5(3)]. 

The interrogatories in fact consist in part of contention interrogatories.  This argument supports this type of discovery in initial written discovery. 

The plaintiffs’ position is that interrogatories are particularly effective in gathering information concerning contentions, because when a party prepares responses to interrogatories, that party is under an obligation to provide information from all sources, not just information within the party’s personal knowledge.  Defendant claims that a deponent’s testimony necessarily is limited to only facts or information based on the personal knowledge of the deponent, which is all that is required at deposition.   

Under CCP section 2030.220(a), in connection with interrogatories, “each answer in a response shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”   Subdivision (b) provides, “if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.”  Under subdivision (c), where a party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to answer a question, the party “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.”

Defendant concedes that there are subjects which would require some information concerning witnesses, documentation or facts supporting defendant’s contentions, including the denial of plaintiff’s contentions, which would not be known personally to defendant.  Those issues in particular not known to the defendant would include those issues pertaining to any defense to the severity of plaintiffs’ claimed injuries, and the sum of damages sought, and including details concerning third party evaluation of the condition of the vehicle.  The defendant has conceded some of these concerns.  The opposition points out that plaintiffs’ injuries include radiating neck and low back pain, and various forms of other damages which the plaintiff is seeking.  Plaintiffs’ counsel in the opposition confirms that the discovery was propounded to seek specific and relevant information regarding plaintiffs’ claims, and that the discovery again has been reviewed.  Plaintiffs’ counsel has determined the special interrogatories were tailored to the facts of this matter.  [Diarian Decl., paras. 6, 9]. 

The declarations attached to the additional discovery provide sufficient detail to support the additional number of interrogatories propounded here, which are not significant, and do not appear to impose such a burden to give rise to a presumption that the discovery is propounded only to harass defendant. Plaintiffs have sufficiently explained the need for the additional discovery.  The motion for a protective order is denied. 

The motion also argues that many of the special interrogatories duplicate form interrogatories, and lists those interrogatories by number.  There is no sufficient argument comparing the language of each discovery request so that the court could make an informed determination concerning whether the discovery is strictly duplicative.  Hence, the court cannot make a finding that the discovery is improper on this ground.  The court is not required to conduct this examination on its own.

Moreover, the argument, practically speaking, appears to somewhat undermine defendant’s argument that responding to these additional discovery requests would be burdensome and harassing.  If the argument is valid, and there is strict duplication, defendant can object on this ground.  In any case, defendant has already indicated that responses have been served to the form interrogatories.  In this day of word processing, the defendants’ burden to cut and paste the same response would be minimal. 

The motion for a protective order is denied. 

Under CCP § 2030.090 (c):

“(c) If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the party provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on terms and conditions that are just.”

Both sides seek monetary sanctions.  CCP § 2030.090(d) provides:

 “The court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 

Here, the motion for a protective order is denied.  Hence, the motion has not been unsuccessfully opposed, so no sanctions are awarded to the moving party.  The motion has been unsuccessfully made, but the court will find that there was sufficient technical defect in the declarations for additional discovery so that defendant was substantially justified in pursuing defendant’s position on this ground.  No sanctions are awarded. 

RULING:

Motion by Defendant Narine Gharibyan for a Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories is DENIED.   

Pursuant to CCP § 2030.090 (c), the Court orders that defendant Narine Gharibyan serve and given that the court has denied defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order, responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set Number One propounded by plaintiff Jozef Gharabigi and Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set Number One propounded by plaintiff Meganoush Azarjeh within thirty days. 

Requests for monetary sanctions by both sides are DENIED. 

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE 

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances.  However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. 

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.