2013-00145112-CU-PA

Holly Dougherty vs. Jason Drake

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Further Deposition

Filed By: Edlow, Joshua T.

Judge Cadei has reviewed this matter and determined that it does not disqualify him
from hearing cases involving clients of the firm of Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood &
Campora L.L.P. This information is provided to allow all parties appearing before him
on any matter involving the firm of Dreyer, Babich, Buccola Wood & Campora as
counsel of record to be fully informed in advance of any hearing as to his connection
with this entity.

The law firm of Dreyer, Babich, Buccola Wood & Campora L.L.P. was engaged to
represent Judge Cadei’s family related to an auto accident in 2004-05. All such
representation concluded at that time. Prior to Judge Cadei’s appointment to the
bench, he did have a professional relationship with that firm including representing the
firm regarding certain financial matters in the early 1990s, referring matters to them and undertaking cases and clients that were referred to him while he was in practice
prior to June 2002. Judge Cadei has not had any personal relationship with the
members of the firm and does not socialize with any of the attorneys from the Dreyer
firm beyond the usual meetings of professional organizations in the community.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Jason Drake’s further deposition is ruled upon as follows.

At the outset, the court must remind both counsel that given the number of motions
such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough
judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could
have and should have been resolved informally. That this is just such a dispute only
serves to highlight the critical need for legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-
confer efforts before filing any discovery motion

This is an action for personal injury arising from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs
move to compel further deposition questions relating to: (1) any medications that
Defendant was on at the time of the accident, and (2) whether Defendant has taken
any special driver’s courses to get the Class A license.

Medications

Defendant objected to this line of questioning and instructed him not to answer on the
grounds that it violated Defendant’s right to privacy and was not likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant argues that because he has admitted
liability, there is no reason to invade his right to privacy. He also argues that because
he has amended his response to Plaintiffs’ form interrogatory no. 12.3 that he “did not
consume alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs or medication of any kind, prescription or
not”, the issue of medications “has been completely eliminated.” (Opposition, 7:28-
8:1.)

The Court notes that Defendant raised the same objections in his opposition to
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel form interrogatory 12.3. In its order granting the motion to
compel, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that the information was reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and directly related to a claim for
punitive damages. (See 1/21/2014 Order.) The Court’s position has not changed.
The Court also disagrees with Defendant that he is not required to answer this line of
questions simply because of his response to form interrogatory no. 12.3. Plaintiffs are
entitled to question Defendant regarding his response.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Class A License

Defendant objected to this line of questioning on the grounds on the grounds that it is
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and that
Plaintiffs may obtain such information through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Defendant’s objection and instruction not to answer on the grounds of lack of
relevancy is improper. The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant shall appear to answer the questions as set forth in Plaintiffs’ separate
statement, including reasonable follow-up questions. The deposition shall take place no later than April 7, 2014. This date may be extended by agreement of the parties.

Sanctions are awarded against both Defendant and his attorneys of record, Lauren E.
Mistretta and Crag J. Rolfe, in the amount of $860 (2 hrs x $350 reasonable rate + $60
filing fee + $100 cost of ordering court reporter for further deposition). If Defendant
fails to pay the sanction by such date, then Plaintiffs may lodge for the court’s
signature a formal order awarding sanctions, which may be enforced as a separate
th
judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4 608, 615.) The
Court declines to award Plaintiffs fees incurred in relation to their motion to compel
form interrogatories.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.