Case Number: BC506467    Hearing Date: September 12, 2014    Dept: B

Motion for Protective Order – off calendar
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

This case arises from Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendants, Michelin and General Motors, are liable in products liability and negligence for the wrongful death of Artur Melkonyan in a motor vehicle accident caused by defective tires.
This hearing concerns Defendant General Motors’ motion to compel a further response to request for production, number 23; and

1. Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production
General Motors seeks relief under CCP section 2031.310. CCP section 2031.310(b)(1) requires the motion to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand for production. In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations. Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224 (rejecting facts supporting the production of documents that were in a separate statement because the document was not verified and did not constitute evidence). In Calcor, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling the defendant to produce records because the plaintiff had failed to provide specific facts showing good cause for their production.
The same problem exists here. Request for production 23 seeks all emails reflecting invoices for jobs in which Sureh Nazaryan used the motor vehicle to travel to a work site. The declaration of the Defendant’s attorney, Anthony Thomas, Mr. Thomas discusses the underlying facts of the case and deposition testimony that showed that the motor vehicle was used to travel to work sites in Northern California.

The Defendant drafted request for production 23 to gather information on the use of the motor vehicle to support a defense that the tires failed due to wear and tear and not to a defect. The Defendant has agreed to limit the request for production to the invoices reflecting travel to work sites in the 90 days prior to the accident.
The Defendant should be able to obtain information on the use of the motor vehicle to support a defense that the tires failed due to wear and tear. If the motor vehicle was used to travel to work sites, then the Defendant should be able to obtain information on the mileage driven. This would involve the addresses on the invoices because this is necessary to determine the amount of miles driven to and from the worksite.
The Plaintiff objects that the information is protected by the right to privacy. The invoices reflect work done to install household light fixtures for customers. The Plaintiff offers no legal authority holding that such invoices reflecting the installation of household light fixtures contain sensitive information or that they are protected by the right to privacy. Further, if it is necessary to protect the privacy of persons who desire to keep confidential their purchases of household lights, then the parties could resolve this dispute by redacting the names of the individuals so that the invoices only identify the addresses so that the mileage can be determined. Or, the parties could enter into a protective order that would permit the use of these invoices solely for this litigation in order to determine the mileage to and from the worksites.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ordered to provide the addresses and the invoices so that the Defendant can calculate the mileage to and from the worksites. The name of the person seeking the services may be redacted.