Case Number: BC693437 Hearing Date: October 23, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses

On February 8, 2018, Plaintiff Ezequiel Martinez filed a complaint against Defendants Nicolas Zev Sneider, Arturo Sneider, and Does 1-100, alleging general and motor vehicle negligence in connection with an automobile collision that occurred on February 9, 2016. In his complaint, Plaintiff seeks general and special damages, including hospital and medical expenses incurred as a result of the collision.

On May 30, 2019, Defendants filed motions to compel further responses to their Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production (Set One). Defendants also seek $915 in discovery sanctions and costs for each motion filed jointly and severally against Plaintiff and his counsel of record.

After the parties participated in an informal discovery conference on September 27, 2019, the only remaining issue involves whether Plaintiff must produce information and documents regarding lien arrangements he made with his medical providers. Because neither of the form interrogatories at issue in the motion to compel involve a request for lien information, the Court concludes that the only matters at issue are Defendants’ requests for medical lien documentation. Defendants’ motion to compel further interrogatory answers is, thus, denied as moot.

Having reviewed the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections to producing the sought-after documents and orders the documents to be provided within 30 days of the Court’s order. The Court finds that compelling this discovery is proper for several reasons.

First, the scope of relevance in a discovery context is very broad and includes matters that may facilitate the settlement of the dispute. (Norton v. Superior Court (1993) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1750, 1760-1761.) Even if it had no relevance to the actual litigation of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds that lien documentation is relevant to and likely to assist the parties in evaluating the settlement value of those claims.

Second, the Court finds that the lien documents sought are relevant to certain issues in the case. The existence of a lien may be admissible to show the bias or financial interests of the physician lien holder if he or she testifies at trial. (Evidence Code §780(f); Jefferson’s California Evidence Benchbook, Third Edition (1997), p. 539, §28.53.) The fact of a lien may also be admissible to demonstrate the reasonable value of the medical services provided by allowing Defendants to demonstrate that the amounts billed to Plaintiff do not reflect the actual value that can be and are customarily recovered by the lienholder in the relevant economic market.

Finally, Plaintiff has cited no authority supporting his contentions that lien documents are protected from disclosure by his right to privacy, and his other objections to the discovery requests are not well-founded.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel the production of documents is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court orders Plaintiff to produce all documentation of medical liens in response to Defendants’ Document Requests Nos. 1, 2 and 14. The remaining aspects of the motion to compel have been resolved by the parties and, thus, are denied as moot.

Defendants’ motion to compel further interrogatory answers is DENIED as moot.

Defendants’ request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel the productions of documents is GRANTED. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s opposition to the production of lien documents was not substantially justified and that there are no other circumstances rendering an award unjust. The Court finds that the $915 sanctions award sought is eminently reasonable in light of the substantial time and effort expended in securing the order compelling these documents.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, finding that the parties could have resolved this matter if they had participated in good faith discussions about the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s discovery responses and that such efforts would have averted the need for any motion to compel.

Plaintiff is to produce all lien documents responsive to Document Request Nos. 1, 2, and 14 and within his possession, custody or control, along with a code-compliant supplemental response, within 30 days of this order.

The Court orders Plaintiff and his attorney of record, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions of $915 within 30 days of this order to Defendants.

Defendants are to give notice of this order.