Case Number: BC669358 Hearing Date: April 04, 2018 Dept: 32

oscar castillo, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

L.A. PROPERTIES HEFFESSE, LLC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC669358

Hearing Date: April 4, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel further special interrogatory responses

Plaintiffs Oscar Castillo, Jessica Castillo, A.C., a minor, and I.C., a minor, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move to compel Defendant LA Properties Heffesse, LLC (“Defendant”) to provide the names and contact information of other tenants who currently live or have lived at 3800 W. 27th St., Los Angeles, CA 90018 (“the complex”.) Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant has allowed their resident manager to discriminate against families with children in the operation of the complex, namely, by refusing to let children play outside in common areas. (Complaint ¶14, 16. ) Plaintiffs propounded their first set of special interrogatories on Defendant on November 16, 2017. Counsel sufficiently met and conferred telephonically on January 26, 2018 but were unable to come to a resolution. (Supp. Decl. Fagan ¶2.)

Defendant objects to these requests on the grounds that the interrogatory is irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive. Specifically Defendant bases this contention on the fact that the complex has 148 residential units with varying lease terms and a compilation of these documents would require Defendant to search through hundreds of paper files to ascertain the requested information. However, Defendant is required only to produce the documents as they are kept in the usual course of business, or sorted and labeled to correspond to the categories in the document demand. (CCP §2031.220.) Defendant contends his objections are justified because the Plaintiffs requested irrelevant information. However, a party seeking discovery need only show that the information is unprivileged and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP §2017.010.) The requested documents are relevant to allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint as they regard other tenants with children who potentially are witnesses to the alleged discriminatory conduct. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has not demonstrated facts necessary to justify these objections.

Second, Defendant objects to these interrogatories on the grounds that providing this contact information would violate third party privacy rights.

The Court looks at whether there is a legally protected privacy interest at issue based on well-established social norms, whether the claimant must possess a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and if the invasion of privacy complained of is serious in nature, scope and potential impact to constitute an egregious breach of social norms. (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370.) If the claimant has met the test for an invasion of a privacy interest, the interest must then be measured against other competing or countervailing interests in a balancing test. (Id. at 371.) Conduct alleged to be an invasion of privacy is to be evaluated based on the extent to which it furthers legitimate and important competing interests. (Ibid.) Protective measures, safeguards, and other alternatives may minimize the privacy intrusion. (Ibid.)

Courts have long held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. (See People v. Williams (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 111, 120.) Tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy for their landlords to protect their personal information about their residence as it is most probable that tenants gave their address and telephone numbers to their landlord with the expectation that it would not be divulged externally except as required to governmental agencies. (See Belaire-Vest landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 544, 561.) A landlord who divulged that information would be in egregious breach of social norms as it could potentially invite unwanted solicitations. As such the Court must balance the countervailing interests between Plaintiffs’ need for additional witnesses and third-party tenants’ interests in their personal information about their residence.

The discovery system in California “is founded on the understanding that parties use discovery to obtain names and contact information for possible witnesses as the starting point for further investigations. . . . The right of privacy in the California Constitution (art. I, § 1), ‘protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.’” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1250.)

The other tenants in question could be percipient witnesses in this action and have relevant discoverable information to aid in Plaintiffs’ case. However, the court finds plaintiff’s request overly broad and unduly burdensome, and as such, the Court limits Defendant’s responses to current tenants in the building. Also, to protect the tenants reasonable privacy interests in their personal information the Court orders the parties to draft a protective order to limit the dissemination of this information only to this lawsuit, and Defendant is to provide written notice to each current tenant twenty calendar days prior to providing its supplemental responses.

Defendant is to serve supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ special interrogatories nos. 1 and 3, limited to current tenants who do not opt out, withiin thirty calendar days from the date of this hearing.