Case Number: 19STCV08829 Hearing Date: December 17, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion for a Protective Order

Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff Patrick Michael (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Elen Eduardi Poghosyan (“Elen”) and Eduard Poghosyan (“Eduard”) (collectively “Defendants”), asserting a cause of action for negligence. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants negligently operated and/or entrusted their vehicle so as to cause a collision with Plaintiff’s parked BMW, resulting in damages.

On June 17, 2019, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

Trial is set for September 9, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendants move for a protective order (1) striking Plaintiff’s written discovery (as not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and burdensome) or (2) giving Defendants until December 15, 2019 to respond and/or object, as necessary, to Plaintiff’s written discovery. Defendants argue they did not receive the written discovery requests purportedly served via mail on September 19, 2019. Defendants also argue “the issue alleged by plaintiff is diminished value of $8,848.00” (of which Defendants’ carrier paid $3,630.84) and Plaintiff cannot “justify such all-encompassing, broad discovery…” consisting of 99 questions (to each Defendant). (Ex Parte Application, pgs. 2-4.)

LEGAL STANDARD

C.C.P. §2017.020(a) provides, as follows: “The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

C.C.P. §2019.010 provides, as follows:

Any party may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:

(a) Oral and written depositions.

(b) Interrogatories to a party.

(c) Inspections of documents, things, and places.

(d) Physical and mental examinations.

(e) Requests for admissions.

(f) Simultaneous exchanges of expert trial witness information.

C.C.P. §2019.020(b) provides, as follows: “Notwithstanding subdivision (a), on motion and for good cause shown, the court may establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.”

C.C.P. §2019.030 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a) The court shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method provided in Section 2019.010 if it determines either of the following:

(1) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

(2) The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

(b) The court may make these determinations pursuant to a motion for a protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

DISCUSSION

Defendants Elen Eduardi Poghosyan and Eduard Poghosyan (collectively “Defendants”) move for a protective order striking Plaintiff Patrick Michael’s (“Plaintiff”) written discovery (as not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and burdensome) or giving Defendants until December 15, 2019 to respond and/or object, as necessary, to Plaintiff’s written discovery.

As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ motion may, in fact, be moot. The Court set Defendants’ motion for a protective order for hearing on December 17, 2019, a date that is after the extension sought by Defendants to provide responses to the discovery requests at issue.

Assuming, arguendo, the motion is not moot, Defendants are not entitled to a protective order striking Plaintiff’s written discovery requests. Defendants characterize this action as one for diminution of value in the amount of $5,217.16. (Motion, pg. 3.) Defendants argue the discovery requests are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the requests are excessive (99 to each Defendant), and the requests “are duplicative and cumulative, as the same requests are made to each defendant.” (Motion, pgs. 3, 9.) (Declaration of White, pgs. 8-9.) However, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking repair damages in the amount of $23,056.93, loss-of-use damages of $13,034.00, and diminished value damages of $8,848.00. (Opposition, pg. 2.) (Complaint ¶¶12-14.) Moreover, Defendants failed to establish the written discovery requests are not relevant to this action. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to propound discovery on each Defendant.

That said, a protective order allowing Defendants additional time to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery is warranted. Plaintiff contends Defendants were served with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Admissions (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) via mail on September 19, 2019. (Declaration of Thomas ¶¶3-4.) (Declaration of Sheikhavandi ¶3.) However, Defendants submitted evidence suggesting that their counsel did not receive the written discovery requests and that, in fact, counsel was not even aware of the discovery requests until November 5, 2019, when she received Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. (Declaration of White, pgs. 9-10; Exhibits D-G.) Defendants agreed to accept service of the discovery requests via fax “to expedite defendant’s responses” and Plaintiff faxed the discovery requests on November 5, 2019. Defendants were willing to provide responses within the “statutory time of thirty days.” However, Plaintiff’s counsel continued to argue that Defendants waived all objections and requested responses by November 15, 2019. (Declaration of White, pgs. 9-10; Exhibits D-G.) (Declaration of Visser ¶¶6-10; Exhibits 3-5.) The position taken by Plaintiff’s counsel necessitated judicial intervention.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for a protective order is granted (in part). Defendants shall have until December 24, 2019 to provide verified responses to Defendants’ written discovery. Defendants may assert objections to the requests, if warranted. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. Sanctions are not warranted in light of the ruling on the motion, the fact that Defendants’ position was substantially justified, and the lack of a good faith meet and confer effort.

Defendants are to give notice of the Court’s order.