2018-00229183-CU-PO

Imelda M. Enriquez vs. Target Corporation

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Form Interrogatories 2) Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Reihl, Lori A.

Defendants Target Corporation and Chris Nezbeth’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to compel plaintiff Imelda M. Enriquez (“Plainitff”) to provide further responses to Defendants’ form interrogatories, set one, numbers 4.1, 8.2-8.7, 9.1-9.2, and special interrogatories, set one, numbers 1-4, 8-9, 12-14, and 21-26, is ruled upon as follows.

In this slip-and-fall personal injury action, Plaintiff alleges she fell and injured her right knee on April 8, 2017, at the Target store located at 1919 Fulton Avenue, Sacramento, California. Plaintiff’s alleged injury to her right knee required surgical repair. Plaintiff alleges the fall was caused by rain water tracked in from outside and that the store negligently failed to prevent rainwater from being deposited onto the floor, to clean and dry the floor, or to warn customers of the wet floor. Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on May 21, 2018, alleging one cause of action for premises negligence.

Defendants served form interrogatories and special interrogatories on Plaintiff on August 8, 2018. (Reihl Decl., Exhs. A-B.) After Defendants granted two requests for an extension of time to respond, responses were received on September 28, 2018. (Reihl Decl., Exhs. E-F.) Defendants’ counsel sent three meet and confer letters and/or emails to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the responses, but never received a response. (Reihl Decl., Exhs. G-I.) Defendants contend that, as of the date the motion to compel was filed (November 15, 2018), Plaintiff has not provided further responses or any response to Defendants’ meet and confer efforts.

Defendants now move to compel further responses to the incomplete, evasive, or non-responses answers.

The parties have entered into a Stipulated Protective Order.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends she emailed and mailed further responses on November 28, 2018, and, therefore, the motion is moot. This argument is rejected. Service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the motion. Plaintiff is still entitled to an order. To be clear, a motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (CCP § 1005.5.) At the time the motion was filed (November 15, 2018) Plaintiff had not served further responses.

Plaintiff then contends the parties resolved their dispute regarding the scope of the medical records subpoenas by agreeing to limit the subpoenas to only medical records since 2007 and concerning only Plaintiff’s right knee. Plaintiff contends amended subpoenas were served in early November, the parties are now receiving responsive documents, and Target should instead review the information that has been provided and drop this current motion.

While the Court is gratified to hear the parties resolved their dispute as to the medical records subpoenas without Court assistance, the Court fails to see how that separate dispute and resolution is in any way relevant to this instant motion. Before the Court now is an in independent inquiry and dispute regarding further responses to written discovery served directly on Plaintiff. Whether or not Defendants have obtained Plaintiff’s medical records from third parties and through a wholly separate discovery method is inapposite. Accordingly, this argument is also unavailing.

Plaintiff then contends the requests seek information protected by the right to privacy.

As to all of the form interrogatories at issue, which concern wage loss and damages, the Court has reviewed the interrogatories and Plaintiff’s responses. The Court is persuaded further responses are warranted. Some of Plaintiff’s responses are “not applicable” or “to be provided.” In other places, Plaintiff provides an incomplete response. For example, in response to form interrogatory 8.2, which asks Plaintiff to state the nature of her work, her job title at the time of the incident, and the date her employment began, Plaintiff responds only with “Babysitting for two grandchildren.”

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that 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.) Further, “each answer in response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (CCP § 2030.220(a).)

Plaintiff’s responses are insufficient and the motion to compel further responses to the form interrogatories at issue is GRANTED.

As to the special interrogatories at issue, interrogatories 1-4 and 8-9 seek the identity of Plaintiff’s medical providers. Plaintiff did not respond and objected on the ground of privacy. Defendants contend the information is not private as it only seeks the identity of Plaintiff’s medical providers, not the contents of any medical records or information. The Court agrees that the interrogatories seeking the identities of Plaintiff’s medical provides does not implicate Plaintiff’s right to privacy and is relevant for discovery purposes. While Defendants may then issue subsequent subpoenas requesting Plaintiff’s medical records from those identified medical providers, that is a separate issue that can be addressed at a later time if the parties cannot agree and Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas. Therefore, the motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories numbers 1-4 and 8-9 is GRANTED.

Special interrogatories 12 and 13 seek Plaintiff’s Medicare Health Insurance Claim Number (“MHICN”) and Social Security Number. Plaintiff objected on the grounds that these requests invade her right to privacy and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff contends this information is unnecessary to obtain her medical records as such records can be obtained by using only her name and date of birth. Defendants contend this information is necessary for Defendants to complete discovery on damages.

There is a constitutionally protected zone of privacy set forth under Article I, Section 1 of California’s Constitution. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526, 528-529.) The California Supreme Court has decided the analytical framework for assessing a privacy claim: (1) there must be a specific legally, protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy must exist; and (3) the invasion of the privacy interest must be serious. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40.)

As to items protected by the right to privacy, the threshold requirement is that such items must be “directly relevant” to the issue in the case. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844; Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55Cal.App.4th 1379.) Yet, 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. ( Board of Trustees, supra, at 525.)

“Even when the balance does weigh in favor of disclosure, the scope of disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed.” (Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 652-53 (citing Harding Lawson Associates v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 7, 10; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-864 (even party plaintiffs could not be compelled to provide information about all their political activities or their entire medical histories; party seeking discovery must show both compelling need for the information and that discovery request is narrowly and specifically drawn to minimize intrusion into private matters).)

The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff’s MHICN and SSN are directly relevant to her claims and necessary to obtain information to compute damages. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories numbers 12 and 13 is DENIED.

Special interrogatory number 14 requests the amount of any payments made by Medicare on behalf of Plaintiff to date for care and treatment of the injuries alleged in this lawsuit. This request, which does not invade any rights to privacy, seeks information relevant to calculate damages. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to special interrogatory number 14 is GRANTED.

Special interrogatories numbers 21-26 concern Plaintiff’s disability history and any claims she may have made for disability benefits from the state. Plaintiff objected on the grounds of privacy, the collateral source rule, and irrelevance. In her opposition, Plaintiff only claims this information is protected from disclosure by the Insurance Code and California Constitution. Plaintiff does not elaborate further in regards to these protections and how they apply specifically to these requests.

Defendants contend Plaintiff’s privacy rights are outweighed as her disability history is directly relevant because her disability conditions may have contributed to her alleged damages. The Court agrees. The motion to compel a further response to special interrogatories numbers 21-26 is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The motion to compel further verified responses to form interrogatories, set one, numbers 4.1, 8.2-8.7, 9.1-9.2, and special interrogatories, set one, numbers 1-4, 8-9, 14, and 21-26 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide further verified responses no later than December 31, 2018. To the extent Plaintiff has already provided further verified responses, she need not re-serve the further responses. The Court makes no determination as to the sufficiency of any further responses that have been provided.

The motion to compel further verified responses to special interrogatories, set one, numbers 12 and 13 is DENIED.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $585 (representing 5 hours of attorney time at the rate of $175/hour, plus the $60 filing fee). Sanctions to be paid no later than January 19, 2019, and, if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

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