Second District, Division 3 Calls Into Question Whether Defense Needs to Answer Some Personal Injury Questions in Many Cases.
Discovery is the bane of most litigators’ existence. It is freely allowed (subject to certain limitations)—vacillating from tedious and time consuming (at one pole) to burdensome and extremely expensive (at the other side of the spectrum). In California state court cases, any litigant can propound form interrogatories that do not even count against the 35 interrogatory numerical limit (which can be exceeded in more complex cases upon counsel’s declaration). Two form interrogatories figured greatly in the next case we discuss.
In Randell v. Superior Court, Case No. B213134 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 26, 2009) (unpublished), defendant in a personal injury was assessed $750 in discovery sanctions for objecting or not fully answering Form Interrogatory Nos. 10.2 and 16.9. Defendant sought a writ of mandate to overturn the discovery order and sanctions. He obtained mandate by which no answers were required and sanctions were vacated.
Here is the reasoning behind the mandate issuance:
- Form Interrogatory No. 10.2—This one asks defendant to list all physical, mental, and emotional disabilities he had immediately before the personal injury incident being sued upon by plaintiff. Defendant objected on the basis that he was not making a personal injury claim and the inquiry was an invasion of his privacy rights and the doctor-patient privilege. The Court of Appeal agreed that this interrogatory was not germane (given defendant indicating he had no defense or claim based upon these conditions) and defendant had not waived statutory privileges relating to his mental/medical condition.
- Form Interrogatory No. 16.9—This one asks defendant or anyone acting on his behalf to identify whether they had any documents concerning plaintiff’s claims for personal injuries made before or after the incident in question (e.g., insurance bureau index reports). Defendant objected on the grounds that (1) the question invaded his attorney’s work product efforts, and (2) the query sought information more readily available to plaintiff, who would have to consent before such records could even be obtained. The appellate panel found these objections to be winners. “Plaintiff is seeking to compel defendant to discover and produce plaintiff’s own medical records. There is no viable basis for requiring defendant’s counsel to perform research for plaintiff.” (See Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2018.020; Bunnell v. Superior Court, 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 724 (1967).)
Just because Form Interrogatories are approved by the Judicial Council does not mean they are relevant or should not yield to applicable objections of a focused nature.