17-CIV-00078 LISA M. VS. ANTHONY LAURENTINO, ET AL.

LISA M. ANTHONY LAURENTINO
SCOTT A. BONZELL IAN FRASER-THOMSON

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

In accordance with Warford v. Medeiros, (1984) 160 Cal. App. 3d 1035, the court has conducted a particularized inquiry with respect to Defendant Lauretino’s assertion of his 5th Amendment privilege protecting disclosure of information relating to his prior acts of violence, his mental health status and medical history, whether he ingested drugs, alcohol, or medication at the time of the events in question, and whether alcohol was available to him at the time of the events in question.

The court takes notice of a pending criminal action against Laurentino currently set for trial on October 1, 2018. With respect to Plaintiff’s requests for information relating to Laurentino’s ingestion of drugs or alcohol and his mental health status, Plaintiff appears to seek this information to establish that Defendant Rios knew or should have known that Laurentino presented a danger to others. Laurentino claims this information is protected by his right against self-incrimination because it is admissible on the issues of his mental state and whether he formed specific intent to commit several of the crimes charged.

Defendant has entered pleas of insanity to several of the crimes charged, and it appears likely that he will raise diminished capacity defenses with respect to the crimes requiring specific intent. Accordingly, Defendant’s mental capacity and his intoxication will potentially be at issue in the criminal trial. The court concludes that any responses to inquiries relating to his mental health or intoxication could potentially be used to impeach Defendant with respect to claims of insanity or diminished capacity. As a result, it is not possible for the court to determine, at this point, that answers to the challenged questions “cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate the witness.” Warford, at p.1044.

As with Plaintiff’s requests for information relating to Laurentino’s mental health and drug or alcohol consumption, Plaintiff appears to seek information relating to Laurentino’s prior convictions or acts of violence to establish that Defendant Rios knew or should have known that Laurentino presented a danger to others. The court concludes this information could potentially be used, in accordance with the requirements of CRE 404(b), to establish Laurentino’s guilt in the pending criminal proceedings. Accordingly, Laurentino’s right against self-incrimination protects him against the inquiries relating to prior convictions or acts of violence.

The court notes that Laurentino has agreed to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.6 and 2.7, and to RFA No. 4.

In accordance with these findings, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED with respect to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.6 and 2.7, and RFA No. 4.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED with respect to Form Interrogatories No. 2.8, 2,12, and 2.13, RFA Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, and RFPD Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

Because counsel for Laurentino ultimately did not respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts to meet and confer, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $4,097.50.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.