Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2022-00032109-CU-PO-CTL 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00032109-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 10, 2023

08/11/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00032109-CU-PO-CTL ELIZABETH P. VS MCFARLAND [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 04/05/2023

Tentative Rulings on Discovery Disputes

Elizabeth P. v. McFarland, Case No. 2022-32109 August 11, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a sexual battery case brought by a 38-year-old woman against her biological father (defendant McFarland) based on his molestation of her when she was a child and a teenager. During that time, plaintiff and her parents were actively involved in the LDS church.* She alleges that her mother informed the church of her father's abuse in the 1990s but it failed to take any action despite having a policy to report such abuse to law enforcement.

McFarland pled guilty to several crimes in 2005 and was sentenced to 32 years in prison. He has been served with the summons and complaint (ROA 8), but has not appeared in the action. He has been defaulted. ROA 53-54.

The LDS defendants demurred to the complaint and sought an order striking certain allegations therefrom. ROA 12-17. Following full briefing and argument, the court rendered its decision on February 27, 2023. ROA 43-44. The LDS defendants thereafter answered. ROA 48.

A stipulated protective order was entered to facilitate discovery. ROA 52. Presently, the LDS Church seeks to compel further deposition answers, further responses to a document demand, a further response to special interrogatory no. 18, and further responses to form interrogatories. ROA 55-69.

Plaintiff filed opposition. ROA 70-73. The Church filed reply. ROA 75-78. The court has reviewed the papers, and no further submissions are authorized in connection with these four motions.

The case is set for trial in February of 2024. ROA 41-46.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2958722 32 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ELIZABETH P. VS MCFARLAND [IMAGED] 37-2022-00032109-CU-PO-CTL matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

'California's civil discovery process aims to unearth the truth of the case, thus facilitating settlement on the basis of the mutually expected value of the suit.' Field v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 703, 705.

B. Answers to interrogatories must be complete and responsive. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. After receiving a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move to compel a further response if an answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under section 2030.230 is unwarranted or not sufficiently specific, or an objection to an interrogatory is meritless or too general. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a). 'While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.' Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 541.

C. There are two statutes that concern themselves with motions to compel in the context of document requests. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 permits a party to move to compel a further response to an inspection demand when: (1) the responding party's response is incomplete, (2) a claim that the responding party cannot comply is defective, or (3) an objection is defective. Conversely, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 deals with situations where the responding party files a response to an inspection demand and then fails to permit the inspection.

D. Any party may obtain discovery by an oral deposition. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.010(a). 'The goal of discovery depositions is ordinarily twofold: to obtain information from the witness and to provide a foundation for the witness's impeachment, if necessary, at trial.' Berroteran v. Superior Court (2022) 12 Cal.5th 867, 892. 'If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document...that is specified in the deposition notice...the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(a).

3. Discussion and Rulings.

A. The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted. Plaintiff's responses are incomplete. '[A] responding party generally may not respond to interrogatories just by asserting its 'inability to respond.'' Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406. Accordingly, plaintiff must serve further verified responses to form interrogatories 6.5 and 6.7 – including all of the required subparts – by August 25, 2023.

B. The remaining motions to compel are denied.

The constitutional right to privacy extends to sexual relations. John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198. In the context of discovery, the right of privacy regarding sexual relations is recognized in Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220. The statute authorizes trial courts to permit 'discovery concerning the plaintiff's sexual conduct' only upon a showing of 'good cause' based on 'specific facts.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.220(a).

In this case, the Church has failed to establish specific facts showing good cause for the requested discovery. The fact that plaintiff filed the instant action based on alleged sexual abuse does not mean the Church is entitled to information regarding other sexual assaults, including the identities of the perpetrators. See Barrenda L. v Superior Court (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 794, 801.

The Church argues that the discovery is 'directly relevant' because plaintiff seeks damages for those assaults. The court disagrees. The complaint contains no such allegation. Nor is there any evidence that plaintiff has taken this position in discovery. The Church points to a letter plaintiff produced at her deposition, but that letter was written nearly two decades ago in connection with her father's sentencing.

Moreover, the letter merely describes how her father's abuse affected plaintiff's subsequent relationships Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2958722 32 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ELIZABETH P. VS MCFARLAND [IMAGED] 37-2022-00032109-CU-PO-CTL and interactions with men. There is nothing suggesting that plaintiff attributes this conduct to the Church.

______________________________ *See generally Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, ___ F.4th ___, 2023 DAR 8071 (9th Cir. 2023).

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2958722 32