Lawzilla Additional Information: Attorney Vanessa Oliva filed the declaration supporting plaintiff’s motion to compel

Case Number: KC070570 Hearing Date: October 30, 2019 Dept: O

Plaintiff Jesus A. Lizarraga’s motion to compel further responses to request for production is DENIED. No sanctions.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

The requests at issue in this motion seek documents that contain the following categories of documents: (1) Defendant’s internal policies, practices, and procedures in dealing with a customer complaint (Requests No. 7, 21-24); and (2) information about other customer vehicles (Requests Nos. 10-13, 27).

Category of Requests Involving Defendant’s Internal Policies, Practices, and Procedures (Requests No. 7, 21-24)

Defendant had offered to provide documents relevant to those involving its internal policies, practices, and procedures (Requests No. 21-24) in response to Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts. It also offered to provide documents relevant to its warranty policy and procedure manual (Request No. 7) pursuant to a stipulated proactive order. Defendant claims that its offer was ignored and Plaintiff instead moved forward with this motion. (Ekblad Decl., ¶ 5.) Furthermore, Defendant asserts that it has already served supplemental responses to Requests No. 21-24. (Id. at ¶ 6, Ex. A.) Thus, the motion is MOOT as to Requests No. 21, 22, 23, and 24.

As to Request No. 7, there is a legitimate concern for disclosure of proprietary information belonging to Defendant. The Court is puzzled by Plaintiff’s unwillingness to sign a stipulated protective order to resolve this issue. Thus, the Court orders that the parties further meet and confer regarding the privacy concerns Defendant District raised in its opposition. The parties are ordered to submit to the Court a proposed stipulated protective order that resulted from said meet and confer within 10 days of this hearing.

Category of Requests Involving Information About Other Customer Vehicles
(Requests Nos. 10-13, 27)

The separate statement explains that the documents from this category of information will shed light on whether Defendant was aware of the powertrain defect that is the subject of this litigation prior, or concurrent, to Plaintiff’s complaint. However, as Defendant correctly points out, this information is not relevant because such information is not an element for a Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The only information that is relevant in this case involves Plaintiff’s vehicle, to which Defendant contends it had already provided responsive documents. (Opposition, 2:10-11.)

Defendant further contends in its Opposition that information regarding the vehicles of other customers is subject to the constitutionally protected right of privacy. However, the constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a compelling state interest. Inquiry into one’s private affairs will not be constitutionally justified simply because the inadmissible and irrelevant matter sought might lead to other relevant evidence. The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.) Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a “careful balancing” of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. If an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the “least intrusive means” to satisfy the interest. (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855.)

Here, there is no necessary intrusion on the right of privacy in this case. Defendant had already provided the relevant information Plaintiff requested regarding his vehicle. Plaintiff also has not demonstrated a compelling state interest to invade the privacy of other consumers of Defendant, or why it is even relevant in his Lemon Law case.

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Sanctions

Section 2031.310(h) authorizes the Court to impose a sanction against any party/attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

Sanctions against Plaintiff are warranted in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet and confer in good faith before bringing this motion, necessitating Defendant to oppose this motion. Instead of attempting to resolve this discovery dispute informally (when Defendant offered such a manner of handling this dispute), Plaintiff also ignored Defendant’s request and instead requested the Court’s intervention, wasting the parties and the Court’s time and resources. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the sum of $3,075.00 payable within 30 days.