Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Dion L. Johnson v. S. Aceves
Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Hearing Date: June 12, 2026
The motion by Defendant S. Aceves (“Defendant”) to compel Plaintiff Dion L. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) to respond to her (i) Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 18-21 and 23-28, (ii) Special Interrogatories, Set Three, Nos. 29-35, and (iii) Request for Admission, Nos. 10 and 16 (collectively, “Discovery”) is GRANTED. Plaintiff has 21 days from the date of service of the Court’s order to serve verified, Code-compliant further Discovery responses.
Background.
In his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on May 12, 2025, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made “false and defamatory statements” that portrayed him “as a sexual deviant, pervert.” [FAC at p. 4.] Specifically, on March 11, 2022, Defendant allegedly “made an oral publication to an unknown number of [California Prison Industry Authority] Supervisors and third persons falsely accusing [him] of ‘exhibitionist masturbation’ towards her person while presenting his tounge (sic) in a sexually suggestive manner.” [Ibid.] Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. [Id. at p. 17.]
On February 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed his summary-judgment motion and supported it with his declaration. [Iranmanesh Decl. at ¶ 3.] In response, Defendant propounded the at-issue Discovery to gather facts about Plaintiff’s contentions. [Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.] After reviewing Plaintiff’s Discovery responses, Defendant claims they were insufficient. [Id. at ¶¶ 6-8.] Despite Defendant’s meet-and-confer efforts, the parties have reached an impasse, requiring Defendant to file this motion to compel. [Id. at ¶¶ 9-13.]
Meet and Confer Requirement.
Defense counsel’s declaration indicates that the meet-and-confer requirement was satisfied. [Iranmanesh Decl. at ¶¶ 9-10 and Exh. F; Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.]
Special Interrogatories.
1. Legal Standard.
“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.” [Code
Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.] “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery of any other party to the action.” [Ibid.] That discovery may be obtained “of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” [Ibid.]
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
A party serving interrogatories may file a motion for an order compelling further responses if that party believes an answer is, among other things, evasive or incomplete, or an objection lacks merit or is too broad. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a).] If a timely motion to compel is filed, the responding party has the burden to justify any objection or failure to answer the interrogatories fully. [Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.]
In assessing the motion, a court should generally consider the following factors: (1) the relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings; (2) the likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery; and (3) the burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought. [Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.]
2. Fifth Amendment Objections.
Regarding Special Interrogatories, Set Two (Nos. 18, 21, and 23-28) and Set Three (Nos. 29-35), Defendant objected based on the Fifth Amendment and did not provide substantive answers. Each interrogatory’s subject matter is discoverable because Plaintiff discusses these issues in his FAC and summary-judgment motion. [See FAC at pp. 9-10, 13-14; Plaintiff’s Summary-Judgment Decl., filed 3/20/26, at ¶¶ 7, 10-11, 16.] Plaintiff has not opposed the motion to compel nor justified his Fifth Amendment objection to each interrogatory.
While the privilege against self-incrimination applies in civil cases [Evid. Code § 940; Pacers v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 688], Plaintiff cannot decide independently whether the privilege applies. This is a court decision requiring a specific inquiry to determine, for each area of questioning, if the privilege is justified. [Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1052-1053.] Therefore, the motion is GRANTED for Nos. 18, 21, 23-28 of the second set, and Nos. 29-35 of the third set.
3. HIPAA Objection.
Special Interrogatory, Set Two, No. 19 requests that Plaintiff identify all mental health professionals who have treated him from March 11, 2022, to the present. Plaintiff objected on the grounds of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), claiming that Defendant has not submitted a confidentiality agreement concerning the release of confidential information. This interrogatory is discoverable because Plaintiff addressed this issue in his FAC and summary-judgment motion. [FAC at pp. 9-10, 13-14; Plaintiff’s Summary-Judgment Decl., filed 3/20/26, at ¶¶ 10, 16.] Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion or provided a justification for his objections. Since Plaintiff can disclose his own medical information and has waived any privacy rights by raising his mental health issue in this case [Davis v. Superior Court
(1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014], the mere identification of mental health professionals from that period is not subject to a confidentiality agreement. HIPAA applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, or health providers, not to individuals. [See 45 C.F.R. § 160.102.] Therefore, the motion regarding No. 19 is GRANTED.
4. Asked and Answered Objection.
In response to Special Interrogatory, Set Two, No. 20, Plaintiff did not offer a substantive answer, instead objecting on the basis that the question was “asked and answered.” [Exh. B at 3:11-12; Exh. C at 2:7-8.] This interrogatory’s subject matter is discoverable since the Plaintiff discussed it in his summary-judgment motion. [Plaintiff’s Summary-Judgment Decl., filed 3/20/26, at ¶¶ 7, 11.] Plaintiff has not opposed the motion to compel nor justified his objection. Even assuming the interrogatory was previously answered, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate why answering it again would be unduly burdensome. Therefore, the motion for No. 20 is GRANTED.
Request for Admissions.
1. Legal Standard.
The party receiving requests for admission must respond in writing under oath to each request individually. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210, subd. (a).] A party can respond by either admitting, denying, or objecting to the request. [Id. at subd. (b).] If part of a request is objectionable, the responding party must answer the unaffected portion. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.230, subd. (a).] Any denial of all or part of a request must be clear and unequivocal. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220; American Federation of State, County & Mun. Employees v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 247, 268.]
When the propounding party believes that the responses to requests for admission are inadequate or that any objections to the requests are unjustified, that party may file a motion to compel further responses. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.] The grounds for such a motion include that (1) the answer to a particular request for admission is evasive or incomplete, or (2) an objection to a request for admission is without merit or too general. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a).]
2. Discussion.
The motion is GRANTED regarding No. 10, which asks Plaintiff to admit that he was placed in Short Term restrictive housing after Officer Martinez reported him for indecent exposure. This admission is relevant to the case. Plaintiff claims that the accusations led to reduced work hours, removal from the California Prison Industry, and being targeted by Hispanic inmates. Officer Martinez’s later allegation is also relevant because it shows Defendant was not responsible for the alleged harm. Additionally, this later claim suggests the harm could have been caused by a non-party, indicating that the Defendant’s actions were not the main cause of Plaintiff’s damages. As a result, Plaintiff must provide a further response to Request for Admission No.
10.
For No. 16, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s current response to that request is incomplete and unclear due to limitations regarding his admission. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (a).]
Conclusion.
As outlined above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel. Plaintiff must serve verified, Code-compliant further responses to the Discovery within 21 days of receiving the Court’s order.
Defendant shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.
4