Honorio Sanchez et al vs Granite Construction Company et al

Case Number

22CV04676

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 12/20/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Compel

Tentative Ruling

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, [“Plaintiffs”] Teresa Sanchez and Honorio Sanchez: Paul R. Kiesel, Steven D. Archer, D. Bryan Garcia, Melanie Meneses Palmer, Marine Davtyan.

Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Complainants, Granite Construction Company And State Of California [“Granite”], Acting by and through the Department of Transportation: Thomas P. Gmelich; Patrick J. Glinka

Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Alberto Santiago Sigala; [“Sigala”]; David Holnagel, Matthew P. Stone, Stone Kalfus

Attorneys for Defendant Commodity Trucking Acquisition dba Tri County Transportation [“Commodity”]: David J. Byassee, Shannon Lamb, Jose Yanez, Plain Legal PC

Attorneys for Jonathan Jair Montoya and Aida Araceli Fierros Villarreal [“Montoya” and “Villarreal”]: Robert L. Reisinger

Attorneys for Jonathan Montoya [“Montoya”] and Aida Araceli Fierros; Ruben M. Ruiz, Matthew A. Zavala,

RULING:

For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Alberto Santiago Sigala to answer deposition questions is denied.

Background

This action was commenced on November 28, 2022, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiffs Teresa Sanchez and Honorio Sanchez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against defendants Granite Construction Company (“Granite”), Alberto Santiago Sigala, State of California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”), and State of California Highway Patrol (“CHP”). The complaint alleged causes of action as follows: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligence – violation of the California Vehicle Code; (3) Negligent hiring, retention, training, supervision, and entrustment; and (4) Negligence – breach of mandatory public entity duties.

On October 16, 2023, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) adding a fifth cause of action for negligence – violation of California Vehicle Code section 22350.

As alleged in the FAC:

On March 18, 2022, Jonathan Jair Montoya was driving a 2005 Nissan Altima automobile southbound on highway 101, approximately 2,600 feet south of North Padaro Lane. (FAC, ¶ 1.) Decedent, Sergio Honorio Sanchez was a seatbelt restrained front seat passenger in the Nissan. (Ibid.) At the same time and place, Sigala was driving a 2011 Freightliner Cascadia and trailer. (FAC, ¶ 2.) Sigala made an unsafe and illegal U-Turn from the center divider of the freeway directly into the path of, and violating the right-of-way of, the Nissan. (Ibid.) The Nissan struck the Freightliner and ran off the road where it struck a tree. (Ibid.) The incident resulted in decedent’s death. (FAC, ¶ 3.) Decedent was 21 years old at the time of the incident. (Ibid.)

At the time of the collision, Sigala was in the course and scope of his employment with Granite.

On or before the date of the incident, the State of California, through CalTrans and CHP owned, operated, controlled, supervised, designed, and managed highway 101 where the collision occurred. (FAC, ¶ 5.)

Plaintiffs allege that Sigala “was a known habitually careless and unsafe driver prior to and at the time of the March 18, 2022 collision.” (FAC, ¶ 35.) Plaintiffs allege that prior to March 18, 2022, SIGALA did not follow or obey the California Vehicle Code or the Vehicle Codes of other states, received citations for multiple moving violations, and had caused prior accidents and injuries to others.” (FAC, ¶ 36.)

Sigala was deposed on October 23, 2023, and elected to assert his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to certain questions by plaintiffs’ attorney. Plaintiffs now move to compel Sigala to answer deposition questions. Plaintiffs also seek to prevent Sigala from asserting his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (Notice of Motion, p. 1., ll. 1-7.)

Sigala opposes the motion.

Analysis

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)

A separate statement is required for a motion to compel answers at deposition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(4).)

“A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following:

“(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;

“(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;

“(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;

“(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;

“(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and

“(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (c).)

A trial court is well within its discretion to deny a motion to compel when the moving party does not comply with the requirement of providing a separate statement. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

Here, without a separate statement, it is not possible to issue an appropriate order. While the court could certainly require Sigala to answer specific questions, the court cannot and will not issue an order that Sigala be precluded from asserting his privilege against self-incrimination as to any question that plaintiffs pose to him regarding “facts or events which occurred before the date of the incident” or questions regarding the actual date of the incident, as plaintiffs request.

Although plaintiffs’ motion must be denied on procedural grounds, Sigala should be aware that there are potentially negative consequences for invoking his privilege against self-incrimination.

“It is well settled that the privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked not only by a criminal defendant, but also by parties or witnesses in a civil action. [Citation.] However, while the privilege of a criminal defendant is absolute, in a civil case a witness or party may be required either to waive the privilege or accept the civil consequences of silence if he or she does exercise it.” (Alvarez v. Sanchez (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 709, 712.) “The permitted lesser sanctions include, for example, exclusion of related defenses [citation]; disallowing production of documents [citation]; exclusion of defendant’s previous testimony [citation]; suppression of related defenses [citation]; striking of defendant’s previous testimony [citations], etc.” (Id. at pp. 712-713, fn. 3.)