Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 22VECV01843, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 22VECV01843    Hearing Date: May 8, 2023    Dept: T

22VECV01843 LUCY PERERA vs TIPTOP RESTORATION, INC.,

Tentative ruling: Motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories filed by defendant against plaintiff.

The court finds that the motion is timely.  The response to interrogatories were served on 2/7/2023.  The motion to compel would be due 45 days plus an additional 2 because it was served by email.  This means the last date to file the motion would be 3/27/2023.  The motion was filed on 3/23/2023 and is timely.  There is no law that says that one can only make a motion to compel on the discovery discussed at an IDC, as claimed by plaintiff.

1. Defendant has requested that plaintiff identify every health care provider that she has seen, regardless of the reason. Plaintiff has made some objections which have no merit and those are stricken: objections vague, ambiguous, General Objections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. This motion is based on a declaration of a doctor that says he needs to see every record since birth in order to evaluate Traumatic Brain Injury.  There is no explanation, however, how some medical records, such as gyn visits, or perhaps an ingrown toenail, could have any relationship to a traumatic brain injury. The request is overbroad, is not based on any science and is inherently unsupportable.  The general rule is that a plaintiff waives confidentiality of medical records which relate to the injury claimed.  Plaintiff has disclosed all medical providers in the last 10 years prior to her injuries. The court finds that this is reasonable.  If there is any basis in those records to suggest a prior neurologic history, then defendant is free to submit additional discovery on that issue.  However, the court finds the response adequate and denies the motion.  As the court is denying this motion on the grounds that the facts and the law do not support this disclosure, then defendant is barred from claiming they were "denied" the information even though it was "necessary," as the denial comes from the court and not from the plaintiff.  This denial is without prejudice.  If plaintiff's experts rely on medical information going past 10 years prior to her injuries, defendant may seek relief from the court.

2. Defendant has requested that plaintiff identify any medical liens against any potential settlement or award. Plaintiff has made some objections which have no merit and those are stricken: objections vague, ambiguous, overbroad, oppressive, harassing, seeking to invade privacy, not relevant, expert opinion, General Objections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.  Information concerning liens is relevant in personal injury cases, including to issues pertaining to potential settlement of a claim.  This is discoverable.  With objections being stricken, plaintiff is ordered to supplement this response with any additional information which was withheld pursuant to objections.  If there are no other medical liens other than those disclosed, a verified supplemental answer should so state.

3. Defendant has requested information on all schooling of plaintiff going back to kindergarten. Plaintiff has made some objections which have no merit and those are stricken: objections vague, ambiguous, General Objections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. For the same reasons as the court has placed restrictions in Interrogatory No. 1, the court will also restrict the response going back to 7th grade. Again, if any of plaintiff's treating doctors or experts rely on educational information previous to 7th grade, then this denial is without prejudice and defendant may seek relief from the court.

 4. Defendant has requested that plaintiff provide a list of any mental health care providers she has ever seen in her life, for any reason. Plaintiff has made some objections which have no merit and those are stricken: objections vague, ambiguous, General Objections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. This motion is based on a declaration of a doctor that says he needs to see every mental health record since birth in order to evaluate Traumatic Brain Injury.  There is no explanation, however, how some medical records, such as therapy or counseling for grief, or other matters for instance, could have any relationship to a traumatic brain injury.  The request is overbroad, is not based on any science and is inherently unsupportable.  The general rule is that a plaintiff waives confidentiality of medical records which relate to the injury claimed.  Plaintiff has disclosed all health care providers related to her current injuries  The court needs further information as to whether any information is being withheld pursuant to objections and may need to have an in camera proceeding.

 5. Defendant seeks all employment of plaintiff since age 16. Plaintiff has made some objections which have no merit and those are stricken: objections vague, ambiguous, General Objections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.  Otherwise, the court will order the plaintiff to respond to this interrogatory in full.

 6. Defendant seeks any drug store or pharmacy from which plaintiff has purchased or obtained prescription medication for the past 25 years. As phrased. the court sustains the objections on the grounds of overbroad, invasion of privacy and seeking information not relevant to the case or which may lead to admissible evidence.  It is not up to the court to rework the language of the interrogatory to make it acceptable.

 The court does not award sanctions as there were good faith bases to make some of the motion and to oppose the motion.

 Further verified answers due within 10 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLERK OF THE COURT TO GIVE NOTICE.