Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 21STCV22707 2022-11-10 Tentative Ruling

On August 13, 2021, Plaintiff T.H. filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant County of Los Angeles arising from childhood sexual abuse. On June 29, 2022, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference. On July 13, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories. On July 14, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to compel third party Orange County Mental Health to comply with a records subpoena.

On March 3, 2022, Defendant propounded Special Interrogatories (Set Two) on Plaintiff. (Foster Decl. ¶ 3 Ex. A.) Plaintiff served responses on April 29, 2022. (Foster Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. B.) After meeting and conferring, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference on June 29, 2022. (Foster Decl. ¶¶ 7-12.) Defendant now moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 57-62. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

A party may move to compel a further response to interrogatories if the demanding party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, if an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or if objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Special Interrogatory No. 57 asks Plaintiff to “[s]tate the name, address, and telephone number of the ‘foster sisters’ you referred to in your response to Special Interrogatory No. 49.” Special Interrogatory No. 62 asks Plaintiff to “[s]tate the name, address, and telephone number of every person who resided in the foster home of Ernestine and Lawrence Skinner during the time(s) you were placed there.”

Plaintiff objected to these interrogatories as “irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . . not limited in time or scope and . . . overly broad, burdensome and oppressive.”

Plaintiff responded to Special Interrogatory No. 49, in part, by stating, “Lawrence Skinner was abusing other children including Plaintiff’s foster sisters.” Special Interrogatory Nos. 57 and 62 are therefore relevant to Plaintiff’s claims regarding sexual abuse while she was placed in the Skinners’ home by Defendant, and they seek to identify potential witnesses. (E.g., FAC ¶¶ 20-21.) The requests are also inherently limited to the time when Plaintiff lived in the Skinners’ home, and they are not burdensome.

Special Interrogatory No. 58 asks Plaintiff to “[s]tate the name, address, and telephone number of your primary care physician(s) from 1983 to 1991.” Special Interrogatory No. 60 asks, “If you treated with any mental health care professionals (including counselors, psychologists, therapists, or psychiatrists) at any time between 1983 to 1991, state the name, address, and telephone number of each mental health care professional with whom you treated.” Special Interrogatory No. 61 asks, “If you were treated at any medical facility or mental health facility (including hospitals, clinics, doctor’s offices, urgent care centers, etc.) at any time between 1983 to 1991, state the name and address of each facility where you were treated.”

These requests are not overbroad as to time, as Plaintiff alleges Defendant placed her in the foster home for approximately seven years, beginning in 1983. (FAC ¶ 19.) As a result of the sexual abuse, Plaintiff suffered “severe and permanent psychological, emotional, and physical injuries, shame, humiliation, and the inability to lead a normal life.” (FAC ¶¶ 52, 63.) Information regarding Plaintiff’s medical and mental treatment is relevant to those harms. Furthermore, as Defendant argues, the health care providers are mandated reporters of child abuse, so they could testify about whether they suspected Plaintiff was subjected to abuse and if they ever reported their suspicions to the authorities.

Special Interrogatory No. 59 asks Plaintiff to “[s]tate the name and address of each school or academic institution you attended from 1983 to 1991.”

Plaintiff objected to this interrogatory as “irrelevant and immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . . not limited in time or scope and . . . overly broad, burdensome and oppressive.”

As with Nos. 58, 60, and 61, this request is not overbroad as to time and is limited to the time when Plaintiff alleges she was in the foster home. Plaintiff’s teachers are also mandated reporters of child abuse, so they could testify about whether they suspected Plaintiff was subjected to abuse and if they ever reported their suspicions to the authorities.

The motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses within 14 days of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions of $2,508.00 is GRANTED, as Plaintiff provided boilerplate objections and did not act with substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

In response to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Plaintiff stated that she treated for her injuries at “Saddleback Medical Center” and an “Unknown Psychiatric hospital in Orange County, CA.” (Foster Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. A.) Following a March 2022 deposition subpoena to Saddleback Medical Center, Defendant’s counsel identified the “Unknown Psychiatric hospital in Orange County, CA” as Orange County Mental Health. (Foster Decl. ¶ 4.) On June 9, 2022, Defendant served a deposition subpoena on Orange County Mental Health, requesting records relating to Plaintiff. (Foster Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. B.) On June 27, 2022, Orange County Mental Health stated it can only “disclose the information . . . requested, if this office receives a signed authorization by the patient or patient’s representative.” (Foster Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. C.) Defendant met and conferred, and Plaintiff stated that she did not know whether she would sign the authorization form. (Foster Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) Defendant and Plaintiff participated in an informal discovery conference on June 29, 2022. (Foster Decl. ¶ 9.) Defendant now moves for an order compelling production of the records from Orange County Mental Health. No oppositions were filed.

A party may move to compel compliance with a subpoena for business records served on a non-party. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1987.1, 2020.410.)

The subpoena requests production of “Any and all documents, records, reports, and other writings reflecting or relating to any mental healthcare services provided to [T.H.] (AKA [T.H.]) (DOB: XX/XX/XXXX) including but not limited to evaluations, assessments, notes, test results, intake reports, progress reports, charts, testing results, discharge reports, and forms from any psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, or any other mental healthcare professionals.”

These records are relevant to whether Defendant caused Plaintiff’s “severe and permanent psychological, emotional, and physical injuries, shame, humiliation, and the inability to lead a normal life.” (See FAC ¶¶ 52, 63.) Plaintiff’s mental and emotional condition is directly relevant to her claims, so she has waived her right to privacy as it relates to the alleged harms. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

The motion to compel is granted. Orange County Mental Health is ordered to comply with the records subpoena within 14 days of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court