Defendant Charles D. Hasse, D.D.S.? Motion for Protective Order Limiting Discovery is denied.
Defendant Charles D. Hasse, D.D.S. (?Defendant?) did not promptly seek a protective order.? Code Civ. Proc., ? 2030.090(a).? Plaintiff propounded the special interrogatories at issue on 5/4/2016 by mail.?? Defendant served his responses by mail on 6/1/2016.? The Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel further responses to the interrogatories now at issue in this motion on 12/2/2016.? Responses were due within 21 days.? Instead of serving further responses, Defendant choose to file this motion on 1/13/2017, after his further responses were due per the 12/2/2016 Order.
Defendant purportedly discovered the potential grounds for this motion during plaintiff?s second session of his deposition, held on 10/20/2016.? Plaintiff signed his notice of errata on or about 12/1/2016.? The Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel further responses to these same interrogatories on 12/2/2016.? Defendant waited over 30 days after discovery of the purportedly contradictory testimony to file this motion.? Defendant did not act promptly.
Defendant did not show a good faith effort to meet and confer prior to bringing this motion.? Code Civ. Proc., ? 2030.090(a).
Defendant?s supporting declaration only shows his meet and confer efforts prior to the Court granting plaintiff?s motion to compel further responses on 12/2/2016.? Flatley Decl., ? 4, Exhibit A.? Although Defendant?s reply declaration states that he met and conferred regarding the protective order, new evidence submitted with a reply is improper and was not considered.? Jay v. Mahaffey(2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538; Flatley Reply Decl., ? 4.? The Court notes that additional meet and confer may not have resolved the issues raised in this motion due to the parties? history with these special interrogatories.
Defendant did not meet his burden to show good cause for a protective order.? Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255, citing Goodman v. Citizens Life and Casualty Insurance Company (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 807, 819.? To establish good cause, the moving party must provide ?a factual exposition of a reasonable ground for the sought order.?? Goodman, 253 Cal.App.2d at 819.? Defendant contends that the interrogatories are improper because they violate his, and other?s, privacy rights and that plaintiff mispresented a fact to the Court in order to obtain leave to amend his complaint to include a prayer for punitive damages.
On 12/2/2016, the Court already found the interrogatories at issue are permitted (over these same objections) pursuant to CCP ? 3295(c).
In addition, the Court already found Plaintiff ?established a substantial probability that he will prevail on his punitive damages claim.?? 4/29/2016 Minute Order.? Defendant contends the Court granted issued this order pursuant to untruthful testimony.? Defendant points to plaintiff?s deposition testimony to support his contention that plaintiff misrepresented an important fact in his supporting declaration to his motion for leave to file an amended complaint.? However, the deposition testimony Defendant references does not directly contradict plaintiff?s statement that Defendant ?represented to [plaintiff] that he was a licensed medical doctor qualified to practice medicine in the state of California.?? The referenced testimony only shows Defendant didn?t say the words ?I am a licensed Medical Doctor in the State of California.?? Notice of Lodgment in Support of Motion for Protective Order, Exhibit B (at its internal 336:10-14).? The other referenced testimony similarly go to whether specific words were spoken.? As such, Defendant has not shown that plaintiff?s statement was false, that he has made any directly contradictory statements, or that he perpetrated a fraud on the Court.
Furthermore, as the second amended complaint now stands, there is a prayer for punitive damages.
The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.? Code Civ. Proc., ? 2030.090(d).
Sanctions in the amount of $2,475 are ordered against Defendant, to be paid within 30 days.
Plaintiff to give notice.