DEBRA YANCY vs. 1527 SPRINGS ROAD, LLC; ET AL.

Case No. CU25-08880

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff DEBRA YANCY moves to compel Defendant 1527 SPRINGS ROAD, LLC to further respond to two special interrogatories. Plaintiff’s complaint in this matter alleges that she was an elder resident at Defendant’s care home following a hip replacement surgery. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s negligence resulted in Plaintiff suffering several falls and attendant severe injury. The two interrogatories at issue here seek the identities of all of the other residents at Defendant’s care home during Plaintiff’s tenure there and the identities of their responsible parties (meaning the persons who assumed financial responsibility for the residents or who were their representatives).

The court finds Plaintiff made adequate efforts to meet and confer before filing this motion. Plaintiff sent Defendant a detailed meet and confer letter explaining Plaintiff’s position, to which Defendant responded with a firm statement that it would stand by its objections and refuse production.

Discoverable information is that reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) The court finds that the interrogatories at issue are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Other residents of Defendant’s care home generally are not reasonably likely to be material witnesses to the care Defendant provided to Plaintiff, much less their responsible parties. To Plaintiff’s argument that the other residents may be witnesses to the general levels of staffing and training at Defendant’s care home, such information is much more directly discovered by other means such as discovery of Defendant’s training policies, staffing records, CDPH surveys and incident reports.

Further, the staffing and training that other residents may have perceived as relevant to their situations and their particular care needs is not necessarily material to the staffing and training necessary to address Plaintiff’s situation and meet her particular care needs.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

CONSUELLA DEANNA WINDSOR vs. WILLIAM VENARD