Tentative Ruling: Jane Doe vs Jacob Atkinson et al
Case Number
25CV06251
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Fri, 10/09/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
CMC; Motion: Compel
Tentative Ruling
For the reasons set forth below, the objections to Form Interrogatories-General, set one, Nos. 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 are overruled. The motion is otherwise denied.
Background:
The first amended complaint (FAC) filed December 22, 2025, by plaintiff Jane Doe (“Doe”), against defendants Jacob Atkinson (“Atkinson”), The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company LLC (“Ritz Carlton”), and Marriott International Inc. (“Marriott”) is the operative complaint. The FAC alleges causes of action for: (1) Negligence-against Ritz Carlton and Marriott, (2) Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision-against Ritz Carlton and Marriott, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress-against all defendants, (4) Premises Liability-against Ritz Carlton and Marriott, and (5) Sexual Battery-against Atkinson.
As relevant to the present motion, Doe alleges that in October 2021, Atkinson, a massage therapist at the Ritz-Carlton Bacara hotel, sexually assaulted her during a massage, by touching her breasts and genitals, improperly draped and exposed her, and brushed his erect penis against her arm/hand twice. (FAC, ¶¶ 13-16.)
As a result of the sexual assault, Doe has “suffered physical injury, and continues to
Suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiff’s daily activities; has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.” (FAC, ¶¶ 30, 46, 55.)
On January 23, 2026, Ritz Carlton and Marriot answered the FAC with a general denial and 18 affirmative defenses.
On January 30, 2026, Atkinson answered the FAC with a general denial and 23 affirmative defenses.
On January 30, 2026, Atkinson served Form Interrogatories - General, set one (“FROGs”) on Doe which asked for information regarding Doe’s claimed emotional injuries. (Gregor decl., ¶ 3.)
On March 30, 2026, Doe served her verified responses to the FROGs, including Nos. 6.1 through 6.7. (Gregor decl., ¶ 4.) Those responses indicate that Doe has been taking Xanax and Ambien, prescribed by her primary care physician, for the past ten years, as needed. (Ibid.) Doe also responded to FROGs Nos. 10.1 through 10.3, which Doe’s counsel contends are evasive and incomplete. (Gregor decl., ¶ 5.)
Following attempts to meet and confer regarding FROGs Nos. 10.1 through 10.3, on June 1, 2026, Atkinson filed the present motion to compel further responses.
Doe opposes the motion.
Analysis:
“Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. “ ‘[I]t is a ‘ “central precept” ’ of the Civil Discovery Act . . . that discovery ‘ “be essentially self-executing[.]” ’ ” [Citations.]” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.)
“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.)
“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)
Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”
A party shall respond to interrogatories, in writing and under oath, by (1) providing an answer containing the information sought, (2) exercising the option to produce writings, or (3) by objecting to the particular interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.210 subd. (a).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides that, “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”
As noted above, Atkinson seeks to compel further responses to FROGs Nos. 10.1 through 10.3. Those FROGs, and Does corresponding responses are:
FROG 10.1
“At any time before the INCIDENT did you have complaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT? If so, for each state:
(a) a description of the complaint or injury;
(b) the dates it began and ended; and
(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER whom you consulted or who examined or treated you.”
Response
“Responding party objects to this request on the ground it is vague and ambiguous. Responding party further objects on the ground it seeks private and confidential information. Without waiving said objections, responding party responds as follows: No.”
FROG 10.2
“List all physical, mental, and emotional disabilities you had immediately before the INCIDENT. (You may omit mental or emotional disabilities unless you attribute any mental or emotional injury to the INCIDENT.)” (Italics added.)
Response
“Responding party objects to this request on the ground it is vague and ambiguous. Responding party further objects on the ground it seeks private and confidential information. Without waiving said objections, responding party responds as follows: None.
FROG 10.3
“At any time after the INCIDENT, did you sustain injuries of the kind for which you are now claiming damages? If so, for each incident giving rise to an injury state:
(a) the date and the place it occurred;
(b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any other PERSON involved;
(c) the nature of any injuries you sustained;
(d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who you consulted or who examined or treated you; and
(e) the nature of the treatment and its duration.”
Response
“Responding party objects to this request on the ground it is vague and ambiguous. Responding party further objects on the ground it seeks private and confidential information. Without waiving said objections, responding party responds as follows: No.”
First, Atkinson argues that the objections are without merit. The court agrees. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about the FROGs. They are straightforward and easily understood. The FROGs also do not seek information that is protected by Doe’s rights to privacy and confidentiality. “A plaintiff who puts her medical condition in issue thereby waives her privilege against discovery of the medical information by the defendant.” (Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1068,) Here, the FROGs seek information regarding conditions that Doe has put at issue by the allegations contained in the FAC. As such, the objections will be overruled.
Having overruled and removed the objections, the substance of Doe’s responses are: (1) At no time before the alleged sexual assault, did Doe have complaints or injuries that involved the same part of her body claimed to have been injured in the incident; (2) Doe did not have any physical, mental, or emotional disabilities immediately before the alleged sexual assault; and (3) After the alleged sexual assault, Doe did not sustain any injuries of the kind for which she is now claiming damages.
Atkinson argues that Doe’s responses to FROGs Nos. 6.1 through 6.7 contradict the responses to FROGs 10.1 through 10.3, which require Doe to provide further responses to the latter. Atkinson’s argument fails. FROGs 6.1 through 6.7 seek information regarding injuries that Doe directly attributes to the alleged sexual assault. On the other hand, FROGs 10.1 though 10.3 seek information regarding conditions existing either before or after the incident that Doe does not attribute to the incident. There is no inconsistency.
Atkinson seems particularly concerned that Doe was, according to her response to FROG No. 6.5, prescribed both Xanax and Ambien for approximately 10 years. That does not change the analysis. There can be any number of explanations for the response, and one cannot assume that this is an admission that Doe suffered from the same conditions before the alleged incident, that she suffered as a result of the incident, simply because of some medication that she was prescribed. The proper course would be to propound follow-up discovery in order for Atkinson to clarify his understanding of the responses.
The court finds no reason to believe that the discovery responses are evasive or untrue. Even if the court did believe that Doe was not telling the truth, the court does not have the statutory authority to order her to change her code-compliant response.
The motion will be denied.
Neither party requested monetary sanctions so none will be imposed.