Case Name: Rachel Danae Vachata v. Lucio Lanza
Case No.: 18CV323454

I. Background

This is a sexual assault action filed by plaintiff Rachel Danae Vachata (“Plaintiff”) against defendant Lucio Lanza (“Defendant”).

According to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), on July 28, 2017, Plaintiff was on a flight to Minneapolis and Defendant was initially seated next to her. He began to speak with her about her work. Defendant moved to another seat when he was told by the flight attendant he was in the wrong seat. He later returned and continued to speak to Plaintiff while standing in the aisle. Eventually, the person seated next to Plaintiff offered Defendant the seat. He agreed and sat down next to Plaintiff but began grabbing and pulling her. He attempted to draw her closer and groped her breast. Defendant also tried to kiss her and inserted his hand in her crotch area. As a result of the assault, Plaintiff filed this action alleging causes of action for sexual battery in violation of Civil Code section 1708.5, battery, gender violence in violation of Civil Code section 52.4, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant.

The motion presently before the Court concerns Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories and requests for production. Defendant served Plaintiff with form interrogatories, set one (“FI”) and requests for production (“RPD”), set one, in March 2018. Defendant also served Plaintiff with RPD, set two, in July 2018. Plaintiff served initial responses and later provided supplemental responses to all the discovery requests on November 15, 2018.

The parties’ counsel met and conferred regarding the FI and RPD but were unable to resolve the issues. As a result, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel further responses to the FI and RPD, sets one and two, and requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel. Plaintiff opposes the motion and request for sanctions.

II. Motion to Compel Further Responses to FI

Defendant moves to compel further responses to FI Nos. 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7.

Plaintiff’s responses to FI Nos. 2.5 and 2.6 are hybrid responses, meaning they include objections and a substantive response. Plaintiff provided an objection-only response to FI No. 2.7.
A party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems the response is evasive or incomplete and/or or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Defendant’s presentation of the grounds for his motion lacks continuity. In his notice of motion, he states Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious and substantive responses are not code-compliant, which corresponds with grounds for such a motion as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a). But in his separate statement, he only addresses how the discovery requests at issue are relevant to his case, not why a further response is warranted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) With that said, even though it would have been prudent for Defendant to address these issues in his separate statement, the burden to substantiate the objections is on Plaintiff. (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

A. Objections

A party may respond to an interrogatory by objecting. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a)(3).) As previously stated, the objecting party bears the burden of justifying any objections raised. (Kirkland v. Superior Court, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.)

Plaintiff asserted various objections in its responses to the FI Nos. 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 but does not mention many of them in her opposing papers. Thus, the undefended objections are overruled. The only objection Plaintiff attempts to justify are her privacy objection in relation to FI No. 2.5.

When a person objects on the ground of privacy, he or she must demonstrate disclosure of the information sought would invade a legally protected privacy interest. (See Alch v. Superior Court, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at 1423.) If the discovery sought invades a cognizable privacy interest, the proponent of the discovery must demonstrate the information sought is directly relevant to a claim or defense. (Id. at 1426-1427, 1433.) If the information sought is directly relevant, the court must balance the right to privacy against the countervailing right to discover relevant information to litigate the case in determining whether to permit discovery. (Id. at 1426-1427.)

Here, Plaintiff cites no authority supporting the proposition that an interrogatory seeking her residential information infringes on her right to privacy. Her discussion in her opposition centers on her status as a survivor of sexual assault and the potential disclosure as a threat to her safety and unnecessary in this case. Although the Court is sensitive to this issue, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the information sought is protected by a legally cognizable privacy interest. Moreover, the exchange of this information through responses to form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council is a routine part of discovery. (See Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-1250 [stating that the exchange of witness residential and contact information through responses to form interrogatory number 12.1 is a routine part of discovery].) And as Plaintiff mentions, there is a protective order in this case that controls the release of confidential and sensitive information. As such, Plaintiff fails to substantiate her objection.

The privacy objection to FI No. 2.5 is therefore overruled.

B. Substantive Answers

Plaintiff provided substantive responses to FI Nos. 2.5 and 2.6.

A code-compliant response to an interrogatory must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.200, subd. (a).) “[D]eftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions” are improper. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) “Answers must be complete and responsive.” (Id., at 783-784.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s responses to these FI are not complete or straightforward.

Once again, FI No. 2.5 requests Plaintiff’s current residential address and addresses from the past five years. Plaintiff responded by stating she can be reached through her attorney. Defendant contends the answer is not complete or straightforward since FI No. 2.5 seeks Plaintiff’s current residential address and her addresses for the past five years. This argument is meritorious.
Although Plaintiff can and should be reached through her attorney, the interrogatory seeks residential addresses and the dates Plaintiff was at those addresses. Stating she may be reached through her attorney is not directly responsive. Thus, Plaintiff’s response is not complete or straightforward.

FI No. 2.6 requests the name, address, and telephone number of Plaintiff’s current employer and employers from the past five years. In response, Plaintiff stated she was employed by Dynamic Surgical, Inc. as the co-founder and Chief Operating Officer in 2017. Defendant argues this answer is not complete or straightforward since FI No. 2.6 seeks the name, address, and telephone number of her current employer and employers in the past five years, as well as her job title and nature of her work. Defendant’s contention is persuasive. The interrogatory clearly requests she provide her current employer’s information and her employment information for the past five years. But her response only provides her employment information on the date of the incident. Thus, her response is evasive and incomplete.

Consequently, further responses to FI Nos. 2.5 and 2.6 are warranted.

C. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to FI Nos. 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 is GRANTED. Plaintiff must provide verified, further responses to the FI, without objections, within 20 calendar days of this order.

III. Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPD

Defendant moves to compel further responses to RPD, set one, Nos. 13 and 14, and RPD, set two, Nos. 23, 24, 26 to 29, and 39.

Plaintiff provided hybrid responses to RPD Nos. 13 and 14 and objection-only responses to RPD Nos. 23, 24, 26 to 29, and 39.

Upon receipt of a response to a request for production, the requesting party may move for an order compelling a further response if the party deems the responding party’s objections are too general or lack merit or its substantive responses are inadequate, incomplete or evasive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)

Preliminarily, both parties argue at length about redactions in certain medical records and text messages that Plaintiff provided to Defendant but it is not clear what RPD these arguments attach to. Plaintiff unilaterally redacted information in those documents and provided a privilege log. Defendant contends this redaction was improper but fails to identify which RPD the documents were in response to. Plaintiff also does not make clear what RPD is at issue. Moreover, none of the RPD at issue concern medical records or text messages. All seek either employment records or communications with the media. Thus, the Court will disregard the redaction arguments raised by the parties.

A. Good Cause Requirement

A party seeking to compel further responses to document demands must, as a threshold matter, “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); see also Kirkland v. Superior Court, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.) This burden may be satisfied “simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) The relevance standard for purposes of discovery is broad. Discovery is generally allowed for any non-privileged matters that are relevant to the subject matter involved in the 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.) Information is relevant to the subject matter of an action if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1546.)

As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s relevance arguments are scattered throughout his separate statement and memorandum of points and authorities. The arguments are not organized in a manner that facilitates the Court’s review.

RPD Nos. 13 and 14 seek communications and documents Plaintiff or her attorney gave to any individual employed or affiliated with any print or online media organization. Before the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff contacted multiple media outlets about her allegations. Defendant contends RPD Nos. 13 and 14 would result in the production of relevant records because the records likely recount Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant, which would establish the timeline of events, may contain party admissions, and could be a source of impeachment material. Moreover, the information is relevant to whether Plaintiff or her counsel communicated to the press, which could affect any claims of privilege. The information might also address whether Plaintiff’s counsel conducted a reasonable inquiry for evidentiary support of the allegations in the pleadings. Defendant further insists that the timing and frequency of the records in question could be relevant to Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff is promoting herself in the press.

Defendant has adequately established good cause for any non-privileged documents and communications that may be responsive to these requests. They could be a valuable source of impeachment material and/or corroborating evidence regarding the alleged assault at issue since they concern the incident itself. Thus, the information is relevant to assisting Defendant in evaluating his case.

RPD Nos. 23, 24, and 26 to 29 seek documents and communications related to Plaintiff’s employment at her start-ups, specifically Mallium LLC and Dynamic Surgical, Inc. During meet-and-confer efforts, Defendant narrowed the scope of RPD Nos. 23, 24, and 26 to 28 and identifies them as narrowed in his separate statement. Plaintiff did not provide any supplemental responses to the narrowed RPD since she believed they still infringed upon her right to privacy. Both parties seem to treat these requests as formally narrowed due to their meet-and-confer discussions. (Under Seal Decl., ¶ 8.)

The narrowed RPD Nos. 23 and 24 seek documents sufficient to show Plaintiff’s role in the formation of Mallium LLC and Dynamic Surgical, Inc., respectively. Narrowed RPD Nos. 26 to 28 all seek documents sufficient to show Plaintiff’s role with Dynamic Surgical, Inc. or Mallium LLC. RPD No. 29 was not narrowed and requests documents and communications related to her termination from both companies.

Defendant contends records responsive to these requests are relevant to ascertain the truth of Plaintiff’s pleadings, discover possible patterns of untruthfulness, and explore potential impeachment material. In his memorandum of points and authorities, Defendant contends these narrowed RPD are relevant because Plaintiff emphasized her position at these companies in her FAC and therefore put these allegations at issue. Defendant further insists that Plaintiff’s role with Dynamic Surgical, Inc. is relevant to the alleged assault because she was traveling as an employee of the company at the time of the assault and Defendant threatened to make or break her company when he assaulted her. Additionally, Defendant contends he has a “good faith and reasonable basis to believe Plaintiff has a history of making false or exaggerated claims of personal hardships and/or accomplishments for professional or personal gain, including this lawsuit.” (Mem. Pts. & Auths., p. 10:1-3.)

Defendant also maintains that the documents would address whether Plaintiff had a motive to fabricate her allegations. In sum, Defendant believes the responsive records may provide him with information as to Plaintiff’s credibility. Defendant also believes RPD No. 29 would be relevant to determining Plaintiff’s damages.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends Defendant fails to establish good cause because he fails to connect Plaintiff’s alleged credibility issues to the discovery he currently seeks. Plaintiff argues that Defendant provides no evidence that Plaintiff is untruthful. Plaintiff misconstrues the good cause requirement as an evidentiary burden. Defendant need not provide evidence supporting his records requests.

With that said, Defendant has failed to establish good cause for documents related to Plaintiff’s status and employment at Mallium LLC and Dynamic Surgical, Inc. It is not clear how documents related to Plaintiff’s role in the formation of the companies as well as her role and termination from them would relate to her credibility and alleged pattern of untruthfulness. Defendant does not provide a fact-specific showing of relevance to support such an argument and instead only relies on pure conjecture to make his point. Moreover, as to her damages, Plaintiff is not seeking lost wages from her alleged termination. Any alleged damages from medical expenses can be gained from other sources. Defendant fails to make clear why termination records from her employer would be a proper source of medical expenses. Thus, Defendant has failed to establish good cause for RPD Nos. 23, 24, and 26 to 29.

RPD No. 39 seeks all communications and documents exchanged with Forbes, which had honored Plaintiff by placing her on a “30 Under 30” list. Defendant argues these records would be relevant to the truth of Plaintiff’s pleadings, possible patterns of untruthfulness, and for impeachment material. Defendant further argues that if Plaintiff was given that honor due to a falsehood or if she “falsely presented herself as a survivor of trauma (especially violence or sexual violence),” then that would be relevant to a motive to fabricate the allegations at issue. (Mem. Pts. & Auths., p. 11:6-12.) However, Defendant again fails to establish good cause. He only guesses that perhaps Plaintiff made her way on the list because of a potential falsehood or by representing herself as a survivor of trauma. This is not a fact-specific showing of relevance. And as indicated by Plaintiff, the Forbes list itself does not mention Plaintiff’s life history, sexual assault, or Defendant but only lists her company information, and Plaintiff’s age, city, and college. (Lee Decl., Exhibit C.) Furthermore, the alleged assault occurred after Plaintiff was placed on this list; it is unclear how an honor bestowed upon Plaintiff prior to the incident at hand relates to her motive to fabricate the specific allegations against Defendant. Thus, Defendant has failed to establish good cause for RPD No. 39.

In sum, good cause only exists for RPD Nos. 13 and 14. Consequently, the Court will only address the objections and substantive responses Plaintiff provided to those requests.

B. Objections

Plaintiff objected to RPD Nos. 13 and 14 on multiple grounds. Defendant asserts the objections lack merit. The objecting party generally bears the burden of justifying any objections raised. (Kirkland v. Superior Court, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.) Plaintiff does not mention many of her stated objections in her opposition. Thus, those undefended objections are overruled.
With regards to these RPD, Plaintiff only attempts to substantiate her relevancy and overbreadth objections.

1. Relevance

As previously stated, RPD Nos. 13 and 14 seeks communications and documents Plaintiff or her attorney gave to any individual employed or affiliated with any print or online media organization. Plaintiff argues RPD Nos. 13 and 14 seek irrelevant information. Plaintiff again confuses the relevancy standard with the right to privacy direct relevancy standard. She continuously argues that the media communications are not relevant to any claim or defense, which is the language of the right to privacy directly relevancy standard. Thus, the Court cautions Plaintiff to be more precise in her research of the applicable standards.

Here, RPD Nos. 13 and 14 seek information that could potentially lead to admissible evidence, such as impeachment material and potential party admissions, that would aid Defendant in evaluating his case, preparing for trial, or settling the case. (See Gonzalez v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1546.) Thus, the information sought is relevant.

Accordingly, the relevance objection to RPD Nos. 13 and 14 is overruled.

2. Overbreadth

Plaintiff contends RPD Nos. 13 and 14 are overbroad because they also seek her counsel’s documents or communications with media organizations.

A discovery request is overbroad if it encompasses irrelevant information but is not wholly irrelevant. (See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 542.) Plaintiff contends Defendant’s requests for her counsel’s documents and communications are overbroad because the responsive documents are not “party admissions and cannot be used to impeach Plaintiff.” (Opp., p. 14:18, 22-23.)

Plaintiff’s argument is not persuasive. Whether Plaintiff’s counsel’s documents and communications are party admissions and can be used to impeach Plaintiff is beside the point. Defendant has the right to discovery regarding any subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1546.) While the communications or documents themselves might be inadmissible at trial, it is entirely possible that Plaintiff’s counsel’s communications could lead to other relevant information.

Consequently, the overbreadth objection to RPD Nos. 13 and 14 is overruled.

C. Substantive Answer

Plaintiff provided substantive responses to RPD Nos. 13 and 14 stating that she will produce the press statements related to the lawsuit. (Sep. Stmt., pp. 4:5-6, 5:3-4.) In his memorandum of points and authorities, Defendant does not address whether Plaintiff’s substantive response is code-compliant.

Regardless, Plaintiff’s responses are not code-compliant. A code-compliant response to a discovery request consists of either a statement that the responding party will comply, a representation of inability to comply, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) Although it seems Plaintiff is attempting to provide a statement of compliance in response to the requests, she does not actually provide such a statement. A proper statement of compliance states whether production will be “in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) Instead of providing such a statement, Plaintiff simply limits her response by stating she will only produce the press statement “related to this lawsuit.” (Sep. Stmt., pp. 4:6, 5:4.) As such, her response is clearly qualified and does not identify if the compliance was in whole or in part and whether the documents requested are in her possession.

Accordingly, further responses to RPD Nos. 13 and 14 are warranted because the substantive responses are not code-compliant.

D. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 13 and 14 is GRANTED. Plaintiff must serve verified, code-compliant further responses to the RPD, without objections, within 20 calendar days of this order.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 23, 24, 26 to 29, and 39 is DENIED.

IV. Request for Sanctions

Defendant requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $15,000. In the declaration, however, Defendant’s counsel lists its costs as $15,375. This creates confusion as to the amount Defendant is requesting. In any event, as discussed below, he is not entitled to sanctions.

In his moving papers, Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2030.300, subdivision (d), and 2031.310, subdivision (h) as the bases for his request for sanctions. (Mem. Pts. & Auths., p. 17:23-24.)

Section 2023.010 is the general sanctions statute and does not independently authorize sanctions. Sections 2030.300, subdivision (d) and 2031.310, subdivision (h) provide, in pertinent part, that the court shall impose a monetary sanctions against any party or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production unless the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or the imposition of a sanction would be unjust.

Defendant did not substantially prevail on this motion and Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion. Sanctions in this present situation would be unjust.

In consideration of the foregoing, Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.