Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV03725, Date: 2024-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV03725, Date: 2024-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV03725 Hearing Date: July 25, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: July 25, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV03725

CASE NAME: Engelver Alejandro Rodriguez Catalan v. Steven Maurice Kane, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Engelver Alejandro Rodriguez Catalan

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Steven Maurice Kane

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission

(5) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED if not already mooted

(2) MOOTED

(3) GRANTED in part and DENIED in part

(4) GRANTED if not mooted

(5) $2,000 to be awarded to Plaintiff.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff, Engelver Alejandro Rodriguez Catalan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Steven Maurice Kane, Richard I Kane, Darlene Ryan, and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence. The parties’ meet and confer process and background of requests, responses, and such were outlined in the Court’s June tentative ruling.

B. Procedural

On April 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed these motions to compel further. On May 30, 2024, Defendant Kane filed an opposition briefs. On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply briefs.

On June 11, 2024, these motions along with the IDC were continued to June 26, 2024. On June 26, 2024, this Court conducted an IDC in light of the Court’s posted tentative rulings, and CONTINUED the hearing on the motions to July 25, 2024 if any lingering issues remained after the IDC.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Compel Further

The Court provided a discussion of the legal standards to be applied for discovery and sanctions motions in its June 2024 tentative ruling.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Form Interrogatory No. 16.9: Form Interrogatory No. 16.9 asks whether Defendant Kane or anyone acting on Defendant Kane’s behalf have any document concerning claims for personal injuries made before or after the incident by a plaintiff in this case, and asks the responder, that if s, for each plaintiff, states: (a) the source of each document; (b) the date each claim arose; (c) the nature of each claim; and (d) the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document. Plaintiff seeks further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 16.9 on the grounds that Plaintiff argues he is entitled to know what Defendant’s contentions are and where he stands on each issue related the case. The Court discussed its agreement with the principal thrust of the motion as to prior claims evidence at the IDC. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the Court’s tentative ruling was followed by a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Special Interrogatory No. 55: Special Interrogatory No. 55 asks Defendant Kane to identify any automobile collisions he had been involved in during the three (3) years prior to the incident.

Although Defendant Kane originally responded with numerous objections, it appears that he is submitting to further responses as no opposition brief was filed, and in his response to Request for an IDC, he noted that he will serve further responses to this interrogatory. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether Defendant has served the offered further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

RFP No. 4: RFP No. 4 asks for Defendant Kane to produce all documents related to all cellular and telephone records, including billing statements of his, on the day of the incident.

Defendant Kane objected to this request indicating that such would violate his privacy rights. The Court discussed the request and objection at the IDC. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the Court’s tentative ruling was followed by a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion.

RFP No. 12: RFP No. 12 asks Defendant Kane to produce all documents involving ISO claim searches conducted with regard to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks further discovery responses because he argues that if Defendant Kane conducted an ISO search on Plaintiff, he must produce said documents as they are not work product by the attorney. The Court disagrees.

At the IDC the Court discussed this RFP as well. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the Court’s tentative ruling was followed by a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion.

RFP No. 13, 17, and 18: RFP No. 13 asks Defendant Kane to produce all documents relating to his sub rosa surveillance on Plaintiff including photos, videos and reports. RFP No. 17 asks Defendant Kane to produce any and all film and/or video footage in his possession, custody, or control (or in the possession, custody, or control of his agents) of Plaintiff at any time. Lastly, RFP NO. 18 asks Defendant Kane to produce any and all audio recordings in his possession, custody, or control (or in the possession, custody, or control of his agents) of Plaintiff at any time.

Defendant Kane objected to this information on the grounds that the request was in violation of Evidence Code section 785 and that it sought information protected by the attorney work product doctrine and attorney client privilege.

The Court discussed this issue at the IDC and defense counsel was to inquire as to whether any surveillance videos would be approved by defendant’s principal to be disclosed in the spirit of attempting to resolve the case. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the principal agreed and whether further argument on this issue is required.

RFP No. 16: RFP No. 16 seeks documents from Defendant Kane pertaining to claims made by any other person against him, pertaining to any motor vehicle accidents, prior to the incident. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Kane’s prior driving history and claims made against him prior to the incident are relevant to the underlying incident and reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence.

At the IDC the COurt discussed the potential for narrowing the time perido for this RFP and the potential relevancy of the same. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to

discuss whether Defendant provided a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission

RFA No. 6: RFA No. 6 asks Defendant Kane to admit he has conducted an ISO search on Plaintiff.

Defendant Kane objected to this arguing it is vague, ambiguous, and violates the applicable code of procedure section 2034.010, et seq. pertaining to the timing of expert witness discovery. The Court disagreed as discussed at the IDC, so at oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the Court’s tentative ruling was followed by a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion.

RFA No. 7 and 8: RFA No. 7 asks Defendant Kane to admit he has sub rosa photos, videos, and reports on Plaintiff. RFA No. 8 asks Defendant Kne to admit he has conducted sub rose surveillance of Plaintiff.

Defendant Kane objected to this arguing it is vague, ambiguous, and violates the applicable code of procedure section 2034.010, et seq. pertaining to the timing of expert witness discovery. Defendant Kane also objected noting that the request is in violation of Evidence Code section 785. The Court disagreed as discussed at the IDC, so at oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the Court’s tentative ruling was followed by a further verified response and whether that further response moots this motion.

B. Sanctions

Additionally, Plaintiff has requested monetary sanctions in connection with each of its four motions to compel further responses. For the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Plaintiff has requested monetary sanctions as imposed on Defendant Kane and/or his counsel of record in the amount of $1,260 as to each motion ($2,520 total for the two.) At the IDC, the Court discussed the reasonableness of the claimed hours as well as the claimed justifications for several of the objections. At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss the Court’s tentative ruling that the Court might award $1,000 per motion ($2,000 total for the two motions), to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel on or before August 7, 2024.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice.