Escobedo v. U.S.
Escobedo v. U.S.
2023 WL 10406558 (C.D. Cal. 2023)
December 21, 2023
Rosenberg, Alicia G., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court addressed two discovery motions and one matter from a previous order, ordering the parties to obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to the case. The court also granted in part and denied in part the United States' motions to compel, ordering Plaintiffs to serve supplemental responses and produce documents by specific dates.
Fidel Escobedo, et. al.
v.
United States of America, et. al
v.
United States of America, et. al
Case No. CV-22-06828-GW (AGRx)
United States District Court, C.D. California
Filed December 21, 2023
Counsel
Ashley E. Kim, Lucas Andrew Whitehill, Robert T. Simon, Simon Law Group LLP, Hermosa Beach, CA, Thomas J Conroy, The Simon Law Group, Torrance, CA, for Fidel Escobedo, et. al.Daniel W. Dunbar, Nadine Ninva Khedry, Panish Shea Boyle Ravipudi, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Fidel Escobedo, et. al.
Matthew J. Smock, Yujin Chun, AUSA - US Attorneys Office, Los Angeles, CA, for United States of America, et. al.
Daniel W. Dunbar, Nadine Ninva Khedry, Panish Shea Boyle Ravipudi, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, S. Joanna Dyriam, Phillip Vincent Tiberi, Wood Smith Henning and Berman LLP, Thousand Oaks, CA, for United States of America, et. al.
S. Joanna Dyriam, Phillip Vincent Tiberi, Wood Smith Henning and Berman LLP, Thousand Oaks, CA, for United States of America, et. al.
Rosenberg, Alicia G., United States Magistrate Judge
Proceedings: ORDER RE: (1) SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT AGENDA FOR DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (Dkt. No. 107); (2) DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Dkt. No. 108); AND (3) DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Dkt. No. 111)
*1 Case is called. Counsel state their appearances.
Before the court are two discovery motions and one matter held over from the Order dated November 21, 2023. The parties face impending discovery deadlines. The fact discovery cut-off date is January 19, 2024 and the expert discovery cut-off date is February 23, 2024. (Order, Dkt. No. 88.) Initial expert disclosures are scheduled to be exchanged on January 19, 2024 and rebuttal expert disclosures are scheduled to be exchanged on February 2, 2024. (Order, Dkt. No. 90.)
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005).
Pursuant to the Order dated November 21, 2023, the United States filed a supplemental joint agenda that attached Plaintiff Ericsson's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10-17. (Dkt. Nos. 105, 107.) This matter is appropriate for adjudication without further oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.
Interrogatory Nos. 10-12 ask Plaintiff Ericsson to respond to alternative contention interrogatories concerning the role of Carlos Botello-Ortega in the vehicle accident at issue that occurred on September 29, 2020. Interrogatory No. 13 asks for identification of documents that support the responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10-12. (Dkt. No. 107 at 5-7.)[1] At the time of his response, Plaintiff Ericsson essentially answered Interrogatory No. 12 and explained why he took no position at that stage of discovery as to whether Carlos Botello-Ortega negligently caused the accident.
A court may order that interrogatories be answered when discovery is complete. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The court will therefore order Plaintiff Ericsson to serve supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10-13 by January 19, 2024.
The court previously ordered Plaintiff Ericsson to serve supplemental responses to United States' Request for Admission Nos. 1-4 and associated Interrogatory Nos. 14-17. (Order, Dkt. No. 105 at 2 ¶ 4.) Nothing in this order alters that deadline.
The United States moves to compel responses to five categories of interrogatories: (1) Interrogatory No. 9 to Fidel Escobedo; (2) Interrogatory No. 11 to Fidel Escobedo and Interrogatory No. 5 to Mary Chavez, Michelle Ochoa and Alexandra Escobedo; (3) Interrogatory Nos. 24-25 and Request for Production Nos. 34-35 to Fidel Escobedo; (4) Interrogatory Nos. 14-15 to Mary Chavez, Michelle Ochoa and Alexandra Escobedo; and (5) an interrogatory response by Alexandra Escobedo in lieu of deposition testimony about any gifts she gave to either parent for the period beginning 10 years prior to the vehicle accident at issue through the present. (Dkt. No. 108.) These plaintiffs filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 110.) The United States filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 112.) The matter came on for hearing.
*2 It appears that the time for Fidel Escobedo to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 24-25 and Document Request Nos. 34-35 has not yet passed. It is unknown whether there will be disputes as to these discovery requests. Accordingly, the United States' motion is denied without prejudice as premature. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv).
Plaintiff asserts an objection based on the collateral source rule. However, the collateral source rule applies to admissibility of evidence at trial and does not control this discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”). Whether the collateral source rule will bar admission of evidence at trial will be decided by the trial judge. Moreover, at this stage the parties vigorously dispute who is at fault for the vehicle accident involving the decedent, Maria De La Luz Torres. While Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, the United States has cross-claimed and counterclaimed on the theory that Maria De La Luz Torres was at fault. (Counterclaims, Dkt. No. 89 at 15-23.)
Interrogatory No. 9 to Fidel Escobedo asks him to describe the administration and distribution of the estate of Maria De La Luz Torres including (a) identifying whether it was done by probate or otherwise, (b) identifying the person(s) responsible for administering the estate, and (c) identifying the assets and property distributed and to whom.
The court narrowed this interrogatory to exclude personal property with a value of $500 or less. The court declines to exclude life insurance (assuming that life insurance is included in the administration and distribution of the estate). In addition to the United States' cross-claims and counterclaims, the life insurance policy and beneficiaries may be relevant evidence regarding the degree of relationship between the decedent and her family. The evidence may also be relevant to whether the life insurance policy falls within the collateral source rule. See Pohle v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245612, *4-*5 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 7, 2022) (life insurance); Erhart v. Bofi Hldg., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150356, *21-*22 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2018) (disability insurance); Kim v. Interdent Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56121, *6-*7 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) (life insurance).
Interrogatory No. 11 to Fidel Escobedo and Interrogatory No. 5 to Mary Chavez, Michelle Ochoa and Alexandra Escobedo ask each responding party to identify any life insurance policy under which Maria De La Luz Torres was an insured during the period beginning 10 years prior to the vehicle accident at issue, including the policy number, the type of coverage, and the name, address, telephone number and email address of the insurance company and each beneficiary. Plaintiffs' objection based on the collateral source rule is overruled for the same reasons discussed above.
Interrogatory No. 14 to Mary Chavez, Michelle Ochoa, and Alexandra Escobedo asks each responding party to disclose payments received in connection with the death of Maria De La Luz Torres including the name/address of each payor, the amount or value of each payment, and the nature or type of each payment or compensation. Again, the only objection is based on the collateral source rule. That objection is overruled for the same reasons discussed above.
*3 The United States' motion to compel Mary Chavez, Michelle Ochoa, and Alexandra Escobedo to provide further responses to Interrogatory No. 15 is denied. Interrogatory No. 15 asks each responding party to provide information that is more properly directed to Fidel Escobedo.
The United States' questioning of Alexandra Escobedo regarding her gifts to her father is not proportional to the needs of this case and not material to any claim for damages. The United States' motion to compel is denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The United States moves to compel responses to Interrogatory No. 21 to Fidel Escobedo; Interrogatory No. 13 to Mary, Michelle and Alexandra; and Document Request No. 10 to Fidel Escobedo. (Dkt. No. 111.) These plaintiffs filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 113.) The United States filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 114.) The matter came on for hearing.
The interrogatories at issue request identification of every health care provider who examined or provided a consultation for the particular plaintiff within the past 10 years, and the “nature and dates” for the consultation, examination or treatment. These interrogatories seek the identification of witnesses to medical conditions that may affect the life expectancy of each plaintiff for purposes of wrongful death damages.
The court narrowed the interrogatories to request identification of the primary care provider(s) for each responding party within the past 5 years. It appears to the court that Plaintiffs do not object to the identification of these providers, but are concerned that the United States will in the future serve subpoenas for irrelevant medical records. That concern is not currently before the court, and nothing in this order prevents Plaintiffs from seeking a protective order in the future should a dispute arise.
Document Request No. 10 to Fidel Escobedo seeks various documents concerning his claim for lost Social Security benefits. The United States explains that such information is available by logging into Mr. Escobedo's account at www.ssa.gov. Plaintiff does not object to production of the requested documents and has apparently gone in person to the local Social Security office. (Opp. at 7 n.2.) The court will order that Plaintiff complete production by January 10, 2024 in light of the upcoming deadlines on January 19, 2024.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the United States' motions to compel are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
- By January 19, 2024, Plaintiff Ericsson shall serve supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10-13.[2]
- By January 5, 2024, Plaintiff Fidel Escobedo shall serve supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9 (as narrowed by the court above), 11 and 21 (as narrowed by the court above).
- By January 5, 2024, Plaintiffs Mary Chavez, Michelle Ochoa and Alexandra Escobedo shall serve supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 13 (as narrowed by the court above) and 14.
- By January 10, 2024, Plaintiff Fidel Escobedo shall produce documents responsive to Document Request No. 10.
- The United States' motion to compel Fidel Escobedo to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 24-25 and Document Request Nos. 34-35 is denied without prejudice as premature
- In all other respects, the United States' motions to compel are denied.
Footnotes
For documents cited by docket number, the court refers to the page numbers assigned by CM/ECF in the header of the document.
The court previously ordered Plaintiff Ericsson to serve supplemental responses to United States' Request for Admission Nos. 1-4 and associated Interrogatory Nos. 14-17. (Order, Dkt. No. 105 at 2 ¶ 4.) Nothing in this order alters that deadline.