Alvarenga vs. Ragen

While the party seeking the discovery need not always show a “compelling need” for the discovery, “when a discovery request seeks information implicating the constitutional right of privacy, to order discovery simply upon a showing that the Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 test for relevance has been met is an abuse of discretion.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 556.) The discovery must be “directly relevant” and it is not enough if the discovery might lead to admissible evidence. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526, disapproved of on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.)

Here, the facts of the slip and fall incident that took place on MBLB’s premises and the injuries Plaintiff has claimed as a result of that incident are directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit and thus are a proper subject of discovery regardless of the privacy interest in preserving the confidentiality of the ultimate settlement of Plaintiff’s claims against MBLB.

The Court has taken into consideration MBLB’s privacy, privilege and work-product objections. The Document requests have been appropriately narrowed to (1) exclude the production of materials subject to attorney client privilege or work product protection and (2) to balance Defendants’ interest in obtaining discovery of information directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit with the privacy interests of MBLB and Plaintiff in the confidentiality of the settlement agreement between them.

Moving Party and MBLB’s requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

Defendants shall provide notice.

10. Alvarenga vs. Ragen

24-01409779

Motion to Compel Physical/Mental Examination

CONTINUED 11. Patino vs. Gibson

25-01531266

Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories (X2)

OFF CALENDAR