Orange County v. Superior Court (Luce By and Through Luce)
| Decision Date | 31 July 1985 |
| Parties | Previously published at 170 Cal.App.3d 954 170 Cal.App.3d 954 COUNTY OF ORANGE, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, etc., County of Orange, Respondent; Scott Brian LUCE, a Minor, By and Through his Guardian Ad Litem, Curtis L. LUCE, Real Party in Interest. G002078. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
In this original proceeding we are asked to determine the appropriate sanction to be imposed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034, subdivision (d), upon a defendant who has failed to engage in meaningful pretrial discovery, including disobeying discovery orders, when such conduct results in prejudice to plaintiff even though plaintiff accomplished its discovery objectives by other means. The trial court struck defendant County of Orange's answer as a consequence of its conduct during the discovery phase of litigation. The county petitions this court, arguing the sanction imposed is too severe. We agree and issue the writ, imposing other less drastic but nevertheless significant evidentiary sanctions.
Discovery problems in this personal injury action were exacerbated by the fact the alleged injury occurred on October 26, 1970, when the plaintiff was 17 months old. Suit was filed 10 years later on April 23, 1980. The claimed injury occurred when plaintiff, his mother and younger brother visited a Well-Baby Clinic operated by the County of Orange on the premises of the Orangethorpe United Methodist Church. Plaintiff and his younger brother were patients at the clinic. On the day in question, either one or two collapsible tables, stored on their sides against a wall, fell over onto plaintiff, allegedly causing irreversible brain damage.
Since plaintiff was a patient at the clinic, the county maintained a Child Health Record, Division of Maternal and Child Health, Orange County Health Department (referred to herein as the Well-Baby record). The Well-Baby record covered a period from July 14, 1969 (when plaintiff was three months old) to April 15, 1971 (when plaintiff's family moved from the area). The Well-Baby record contained an account of the October 26, 1970 accident, 1 which plaintiff claims resulted in his brain damage and retardation, and a brief account of his development prior to the accident. It was the county's failure to produce this record promptly, along with the names and addresses of parents of other patients at the clinic, which gave rise to the discovery sanction imposed in this case.
Plaintiff first requested reports concerning the accident and the injuries complained of in September 1980. At that time, plaintiff served interrogatories on the county requesting information concerning possible witnesses. Plaintiff also requested any report "concerning this accident or the injuries complained of." Plaintiff had to file a motion to compel answers to its first set of interrogatories before the county answered on January 9, 1981. The county's answers revealed the names of three potential witnesses to the accident, the doctor and two nurses present at the clinic, as well as the existence of an accident report prepared in 1979. However, the county also had in its possession the Well-Baby records for plaintiff and for 14 other patients who were seen at the clinic that day and whose parents or guardians were potential witnesses, yet the county gave plaintiff no information concerning these records.
On March 15, 1983, co-defendant, Orangethorpe Methodist Church (Orangethorpe), served the county with a request to produce documents which specifically requested clinic records and/or medical records in the county's possession concerning treatment of plaintiff both before and after the October 26, 1970 accident. Orangethorpe also sought records for all persons who attended the Well-Baby Clinic on the day in question. The record before us does not indicate whether the county responded to this request or whether Orangethorpe pursued it.
Plaintiff's next attempt at discovery occurred on March 8, 1984, when plaintiff served his second set of interrogatories. Plaintiff asked whether the county had learned of any witnesses since the date of the first set of interrogatories. The county answered, "No." Plaintiff also asked, "Did any person make any report for, or to, you pertaining to plaintiff's accident on October 26, 1970?" The county answered, "No."
Apparently, a third set of interrogatories was also filed by plaintiff, but these are not included in the record. However, the record does show plaintiff was forced to seek an order compelling the county's answers to the second and third set of interrogatories.
On March 30, 1984, plaintiff propounded a request for identification and production of documents, including a request for all Well-Baby Clinic records containing names and addresses of all parents attending the Well-Baby Clinic on the date of the accident, as well as "A true and complete copy of Child Health Record pertaining to Scott Brian Luce." In a letter reply, the attorney for the county stated, "While it is highly unlikely my client" has any such records since "my client disposes of records after three years[,] ... we are still searching." This was a complete misstatement since, as will be seen, the county official in charge admitted he failed to search after the first set of interrogatories was answered in 1980.
On June 7, 1984, plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling the county to identify and produce the requested documents. This motion was granted by the court on June 14, 1984. Shortly thereafter, the county filed a response to plaintiff's request stating, "We have no such documents."
Not willing to accept the county's answers despite their being under oath, plaintiff's counsel sent someone directly to the County Health Care Agency with a medical release authorization from plaintiff's father asking to see plaintiff's medical records. After a search, the agency was able to locate the requested Well-Baby records for plaintiff, and, on July 5, 1984, plaintiff's counsel received a copy of plaintiff's Well-Baby Record by certified mail from the County Health Care Agency. The county did not, however, give plaintiff the requested copies of records of other clinic patients who may have been at the clinic on the day of plaintiff's accident.
On August 20, 1984, plaintiff filed a motion to strike the county's answer and to enter default or, in the alternative, for suitable orders and sanctions on the ground that "said defendant willfully suppressed material evidence and willfully supplied false answers to interrogatories and requests to produce." Evidence offered in support of and in opposition to the motion showed coordination and investigation of lawsuits against the county was handled by "risk management," a county agency. John Oskins, a "risk management" administrator, became aware of this case when he started work with the county in February 1980. In the latter part of 1980, at the request of the county's attorney, Oskins attempted to discover "accident reports or reports written, prepared by anybody in connection with this case." Felix Schwartz, one of the Health Care Agency administrators and, at one time, the custodian of records, told Oskins if any reports existed they would have been destroyed after five to seven years. Schwartz also stated he remembered the staff had given a medical record to an investigator named Mr. Chambers in 1979, who stated he represented plaintiff's family.
Oskins stated that, after his first request for records from Schwartz, he believed there were no records because they had been destroyed and, if there were any, plaintiff's counsel already had them. Oskins never asked anyone at the Health Care Agency whether, in fact, any records existed pertaining to plaintiff.
After a hearing on the motion, the trial court issued its order, finding: "defendant's conduct during the course of discovery as evidenced by the record in this action was willful, without substantial justification and justifies an award of reasonable expenses and attorneys fees." The court also stated, The trial court awarded sanctions in plaintiff's favor in the amount of $10,000 as well as reasonable expenses and attorneys fees in the sum of $2,500.
Trial in this matter was set for October 8, 1984. Shortly before trial, plaintiff issued a subpoena duces tecum to the Custodian of Records for the County Health Department seeking "all of the medical records pertaining to children who attended the Well-Baby Clinic held at the Orangethorpe United Methodist Church in 1970." The county filed a motion to quash the subpoena, claiming it was "violative of the rights to privacy of those individuals whose medical records are being sought" and of California Rules of Court, rule 333, since plaintiff sought discovery within 30 days of trial. The trial court ordered inspection of the medical records in camera and, as a result, on October 11, 1984, plaintiff obtained approximately 50 sets of Well-Baby Clinic records containing names and addresses of parents who had attended the clinic in 1970. Plaintiff states 14 of the files pertain to babies who were seen at the clinic on the day of plaintiff's accident. These records were obtained on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orange County v. Superior Court (Luce)
...Respondent; LUCE, a Minor, etc., Real Party in Interest. Supreme Court of California, In Bank. Nov. 14, 1985. Prior Report: Cal.App., 216 Cal.Rptr. 596. Petition for review MOSK, GRODIN, LUCAS and KAUS, * JJ., concur. * Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Sitting under assignmen......
-
Orange County v. Superior Court (Luce)
...Respondent; LUCE, a Minor, Real Party in Interest. No. L.A. 32127. Supreme Court of California. June 5, 1986. Prior report: Cal.App., 216 Cal.Rptr. 596. Pursuant to the written request of the parties herein, the above-entitled matter is DISMISSED as The remittutur shall issue forthwith. BIR......