Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 22STCV21764, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV21764, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21764 Hearing Date: January 4, 2024 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 1-4-24 c/f 12-28-23

Case #: 22STCV21764

Trial Date: 6-3-24

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Excel Residential Services, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Jonatan Lopez, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On July 1, 2022, plaintiffs Jonatan Lopez, et al. filed a complaint for Negligence, and Premises Liability, due to a fire occurring on July 4, 2020, which was exacerbated by alleged substandard conditions and maintenance of the premises identified as 8651 N. Wilbur Ave., Northridge. March 30, 2023, FCA US LLC answered the complaint.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Excel Residential Services, Inc. moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents, numbers 1-43 from plaintiffs Jonatan Lopez, Zuleima Cervantes, Allen Cervantes, by and through his guardian ad litem Zuleima Cervantes; Ivan Cervantes, by and through his guardian ad litem Zuleima Cervantes, Evaristo Cervantes, Griselda Rojas, David Cervantes, Jose Cruz, Fabian Vargas Chavez, Jacinto Chavez, Jose Chavez Leon, Silva Chavez Leon, Ramiro Chavez, Andres Chavez, Amila Zamudio, Maria DeSantiago, Carlos DeSantiago, Cristian Gomez DeSantiago, Hector Gomez DeSantiago, Hilario Gomez Zaraut, Maria DeSantiago, Rosemary Gomez DeSantiago, Alejandro Gomez DeSantiago, Maria Herrera, Jonathan Herrera, Evelin Felix, Katherine Lopez, Yuridia Lopez, Crystal Montelongo, Christian Montelongo, Elly Montelongo, Ernesto Montelongo, Maria Montelongo, Erika RiveraAngel Lozano, Erick Lozano, Leidy Lozano, by and through her guardian ad litem Erika Rivera, Rosa Lozano, by and through her guardian ad litem Erika Rivera, Reigna Segovia, Oscar Segovia, by and through his guardian ad litem Reigna Segovia, Luis Mejia, by and through his guardian ad litem Reigna Segovia, and Raul Escobar Hernandez. The dispute involves the request for general categories of documents to which Plaintiff alleges numerous unmeritorious objections.

Plaintiffs in a one day late opposition decries the volume of propounded discovery and the difficulty in coordinating and obtaining responses from each individual Plaintiff. Even with acknowledged discovery extensions, Plaintiff was unable to present responses, thereby leading to service of objections without any supporting argument for said objections other than perhaps an effort to avoid a motion and order to compel initial responses without objections. Notwithstanding several months of extensions and delays, Plaintiffs now provided limited responses, with certain responses still outstanding, but completed by Christmas. [See partially incorporated Declaration of Mary Keshihysan.] Plaintiffs request the court refrain from imposing sanctions.

The court electronic filing system shows no reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication date.

The non-privileged objections lack support. The court addresses the general standards.

The form of question objections lack merit. Defendant may not intentionally misconstrue a work for obstreperous purposes. “Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 superseded by statute on unrelated ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444.) Defendant lacks support for the objections on vague and ambiguous to Judicial Council drafted form interrogatories.

“But ‘[f]or discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement….” [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. [Citation.]’ (Citations.)” (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653–654.) The subject Judicial Council drafted interrogatories seek relevant information regarding the information relevant to the case brought by Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot pick and chose how much information will be disclosed based on unsupported parameters.

The burdensome and oppressive objections also lack merit. Objecting parties must file evidence detailing the amount of work involved, in order to support objections based upon burden and oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) “[S]ome burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.” (Id. at p. 418.) Plaintiff otherwise failed to file a protective order.

The equally available objection lack support. (Bunnell v. Sup.Ct. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 723–724.) The premature expert testimony objection also lacks support. Plaintiff can respond to the request without relying exclusively on expert witness disclosure. (See Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 751.)

The court also reviews the privilege objection standards.

The attorney-client privilege attaches to a confidential communication between the attorney and the client and bars discovery of the communication irrespective of whether it includes unprivileged material.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 734.) The transmission of information between third parties and counsel also maintain attorney client privilege protection, if the communication is in further interest of the client. (Evid. Code, § 952.) “Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 733.)

The work product privilege applies where the sought after documents contains Defendant’s “impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research or theories,” the information is protected by the work product doctrine. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030(c).) “An objecting party may be entitled to protection if it can make a preliminary or foundational showing that answering the interrogatory would reveal the attorney's tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney's industry or efforts”].) (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502.) Notes, statements, and impressions of the case are protected by the work product doctrine. A list of potential witnesses is not work product. (Id. at p. 495; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214, 217–218.)

Plaintiff references a privacy objection, but no actual objection appears in any of the responses. [Declaration of Kelly Chan.] Regardless, the court addresses the standard. “Privacy interests generally fall into one of two categories: (1) an interest in making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference (‘autonomy privacy’); and (2) an interest in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (‘informational privacy’).” (Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Assn. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1301.) “[I]ndividuals have a legally recognized privacy interest in their personal financial information.” (International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 330.) The objecting party has the burden to file evidence of the preliminary facts establishing a privilege exists. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557; HLC Properties, Limited v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 54, 59.)

Tax returns are privileged, but the privilege is not absolute. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4^th 704, 720; Deary v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080.) The privilege protects all entries made on tax returns such as amounts of income reported, deductions claimed, etc. In other words, the content of the return, as well as production of the returns themselves, is privileged. (Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 7 [“Assuming Revenue and Taxation Code section 7056 protects the returns themselves, it is reasonable to conclude that it must also protect the information contained in the returns”].) A compelling reason for discovery must be presented. (Fortunato v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 483.)

A party is entitled to physician patient privilege. A patient may continue to exercise a reasonable expectation of privacy of their medical information if the information is not directly relevant to a particular condition the patient placed in issue. (California Consumer Health Care Council v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 21, 31.) “‘The patient thus is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific mental or emotional injury; the scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court.’” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) “‘The party seeking the constitutionally protected information has the burden of establishing that the information sought is directly relevant to the claims. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (See Barrenda L. v. Superior Court (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 794, 801-802.) The standard for good cause requires the moving party to produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) “[A]n implicit waiver of a party's constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff's claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit… [¶] … On occasion her privacy interests may have to give way to her opponent's right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Id. at p. 842.)

The court declines to address each and every privilege objection given the summary objections and conclusive arguments seeking to compel further responses. The non-privileged objections are overruled. Plaintiffs are ordered provided verified responses to all non-privileged responses, and produce a privilege log for each and every plaintiff regarding each and every objection applicable to said party and the documents withheld. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.240, sub. (c), 2031.250, 2031.310, subd. (a).) Sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel for $250 payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, sub. (h).) Failure to comply with the order may lead to a motion for evidentiary, issue, or even terminating sanctions if Plaintiffs withhold information. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, sub. (i).)

Motions to compel further responses on calendar for January 4, 2024. Trial set for June 3, 2024.

Defendant to give notice.

Dept. F-49

Date: 1-4-24

Case #: 22STCV21764

Trial Date: 6-3-24

FURTHER INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Excel Residential Services, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Jonatan Lopez, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories

SUMMARY OF ACTION

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Excel Residential Services, Inc. moves to compel further responses to Form (set one) and Special Interrogatories (set one) from plaintiffs Jonatan Lopez, Zuleima Cervantes, Allen Cervantes, by and through his guardian ad litem Zuleima Cervantes; Ivan Cervantes, by and through his guardian ad litem Zuleima Cervantes, Evaristo Cervantes, Griselda Rojas, David Cervantes, Jose Cruz, Fabian Vargas Chavez, Jacinto Chavez, Jose Chavez Leon, Silva Chavez Leon, Ramiro Chavez, Andres Chavez, Amila Zamudio, Maria DeSantiago, Carlos DeSantiago, Cristian Gomez DeSantiago, Hector Gomez DeSantiago, Hilario Gomez Zaraut, Maria DeSantiago, Rosemary Gomez DeSantiago, Alejandro Gomez DeSantiago, Maria Herrera, Jonathan Herrera, Evelin Felix, Katherine Lopez, Yuridia Lopez, Crystal Montelongo, Christian Montelongo, Elly Montelongo, Ernesto Montelongo, Maria Montelongo, Erika RiveraAngel Lozano, Erick Lozano, Leidy Lozano, by and through her guardian ad litem Erika Rivera, Rosa Lozano, by and through her guardian ad litem Erika Rivera, Reigna Segovia, Oscar Segovia, by and through his guardian ad litem Reigna Segovia, Luis Mejia, by and through his guardian ad litem Reigna Segovia, and Raul Escobar Hernandez. The dispute involves the request for general categories of information related to the complaint to which Plaintiff alleges numerous unmeritorious objections.

Plaintiffs in a one day late opposition challenges the volume of propounded discovery and the difficulty in coordinating and obtaining responses from each individual Plaintiff. Even with acknowledged discovery extensions, Plaintiff was unable to present responses, thereby leading to service of objections without any supporting argument for said objections other than perhaps an effort to avoid a motion and order to compel initial responses without objections. Notwithstanding several months of extensions and delays, Plaintiffs now provided limited responses, with certain responses still outstanding, but completed by Christmas. [See partially incorporated Declaration of Mary Keshihysan.] Plaintiffs request the court refrain from imposing sanctions.

The court electronic filing system shows no reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication date.

The non-privileged objections lack support. The court addresses the general standards.

The court also reviews the privilege objection standards.

“Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (citation) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under [citation].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

The court lacks any copies of the purported responses, and therefore grants the motion. The court also declines to address each and every privilege objection given the summary objections, conclusive arguments seeking to compel further responses, and lack of any address/admission to the objections as a form of extending the response deadline. The non-privileged objections are overruled. Plaintiffs are ordered provided verified responses to all non-privileged responses. The court declines to make a finding of a compelling response to any potentially privileged items, and orders production of a privilege log with regards to the document production. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210, subd. (a)(1-2), 2031.220, 2031.240, 2030.300, subd. (a).) Continued privileged objections may be addressed as part of any potential motion following supplemental responses, if applicable.

Plaintiffs brought this action, and must comply with the requirements of discovery, especially given the several months of extensions and cooperation by Defendant. Because the motion was the only way to compel any factual responses, as a matter of court policy, the court imposes sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel for $250 payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, sub. (h).) Failure to comply with the order may lead to a motion for evidentiary, issue, or even terminating sanctions if Plaintiffs withhold information. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (e), 2031.310, sub. (i).)

The court lacks the resources to address the sheer volume of Plaintiffs and number of objections presented. Continued blanket objections requiring individual, voluminous consideration may be referred to a discovery referee at the cost of both parties. Insufficient factual responses thereby compelling a second set of motions to compel further responses and/or further excuses for failing to gather information will also be subject to a referee referral.

Trial remains set for June 3, 2024.

Defendant to give notice.