Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1232483, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to sets one of Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) and Special Interrogatories (“SPROG”) is GRANTED.

The court grants this motion pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300.

1)        Form Interrogatories

As to FROG No. 16.1, Defendant provided no substantive response to this FROG.  Defendant also did not provide a response in compliance with Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220(c).

The motion is GRANTED as to FROG No. 16.1.

As to FROG No. 17.1, as Defendant is claiming she was unconscious at the time of the incident and has no information related thereto, she must amend her responses to FROG No. 17.1 to say such.  Further, as she is/was treating with physicians regarding the unconscious episodes, those physicians should be identified as well as any documents supporting those fact in order to comply with the requirements of Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220.

The motion is GRANTED as to FROG No. 17.1.

2)        Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff seeks Defendant’s further responses to SPROG Nos. 1-8, which pertain to Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action and potential negligence by Defendant.  Defendant produced identical responses to each of these SPROG.  While Defendant produced responses in compliance with Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220(c), she did not produce responses in compliance with Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220(a), which requires a responding party to produce responses, “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”  (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220(a)) Defendant had information related to her allegedly being unconscious at the time of the incident when she served her responses.  This information should be produced in response to FROG Nos. 1-8.

The motion is GRANTED as to SPROG Nos. 1-8.

Plaintiff next requests Defendant’s further response to SPROG No. 15, which requests information related to Defendant’s insurance carrier.  This SPROG does not request Defendant produce the entirety of her medical records, or really any medical records at all.  It only asks for her insurance information.  From that, Defendant may subpoena Defendant’s insurer to try to determine other medical care providers who may have treated Defendant for issues related to her going unconscious.  The records sought will likely lead to the discovery of medical records that are directly relevant to Defendant’s claim that she went unconscious at the time of the subject incident and/or in the past. However, not all of the medical care providers will be proper subjects for subpoena.  This is something parties can work out together at or around the time subpoenas are going to be issued.  There is a compelling interest in the insurance records as they are likely to lead to relevant and discoverable information.  (Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017), 3 Cal. 5th 531, 556.)  The eight-year timespan is also reasonable.

The motion is GRANTED as to SPROG No. 15.

Finally, Plaintiff requests Defendant’s further response to SPROG No. 23, which asks for information relating to any healthcare providers who treated Defendant for seizures prior to the incident.  Defendant only identified two in her responses to prior SPROG (Nos. 11-13) and it is unclear if any of them treated Defendant for seizures and/or if those are the only healthcare providers that treated Defendant prior to the incident.  Information relating to these healthcare providers must be produced.

The motion is GRANTED as to SPROG No. 23.

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions of $3,910 against Defendant and her counsel of record pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.300(d), 2023.010, and 2023.020.  As these motions also could have been easily avoided with obvious supplemental responses, the monetary sanctions are awarded.  The amount is reduced to $3,085 as there is some overlap in the hours requested for appearing at the hearing.  $550/hr. x 5.5 hrs. + $60 fee = $3,085.

Plaintiff to give notice.