Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 21STCV41026, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21STCV41026    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One)

Motions Filed: 10/25/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Kimberly Gallegos, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sebastian Gallegos (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Consolidated Disposal Service LLC (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Defendant to provide further responses to the following discovery requests:

·         Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 4.1.

·         Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 20, 21, 31, 32, 35, 39, 40, 41, and 43.

·         Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, Nos. 2, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 22.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motions are continued to March 27, 2024. Defendant is ordered to supplement its responses as represented in its opposition papers, and to produce responses and responsive documents subject to the Court’s below-outlined Protective Order, within 30 days.

The parties’ counsel are ordered to meet and further confer either telephonically or in-person within 60 days of Defendant’s service of its supplemental responses, to resolve and/or narrow all remaining discovery issues. Plaintiff’s counsel is to file a declaration with the Court which confirms compliance with this order or explains why no meaningful meet and confer occurred.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury/wrongful death action in which Plaintiffs, the parents of decedent Sebastian Gallegos (“Decedent”), allege that on 11/20/19, the vehicle in which Decedent was a passenger rear-ended a commercial truck driven by defendant Logan Jose Lizares while in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant, causing Decedent’s fatal injuries. (FAC ¶¶ 23–26.)

On 11/10/21, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint. On 11/17/21, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging against 8 named defendants the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Hiring/Retention/Supervision/Training & Entrustment; (3) Strict Product Liability; (4) Negligence – Product Liability; and (5) Breach of Warranties. Only the first and second causes of action are alleged against Defendant. On 10/17/22, Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiffs’ FAC.

On 10/25/23, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to her first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPs. On 1/12/24, Defendant filed its oppositions. On 1/19/24, Plaintiff filed her replies.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to the subject discovery requests, arguing that Defendant’s objections thereto are without merit, and that “Defendants CDS and Lizares have produced no documents, despite many of the requests having no bearing on any kind of confidential information and where it is doubtful that any confidential information is actually implicated under California law.” (Pl.’s RFP Mot. 4:10–13.)

A.    Meet and Confer

Plaintiff’s attorney declares that “following the receipt of the responses, the parties engaged in a lengthy meet and confer process, including the matter of a Protective Order.” (Decl. of Katherine Harvey-Lee, ¶ 3.) Accordingly, the parties have satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (b)(1) and 2031.310, subdivision (b)(2).

B.     Protective Order

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.420, subd. (b), 2030.090, subd. (b), 2031.060, subd. (b).)

Here, it appears that the parties are unable to agree on the terms of a proposed Protective Order concerning Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 39, 40, and 41, and RFP Nos. 12, 13, 17, and 18. The subject interrogatories seek information regarding training materials given to Lizares regarding the subject route taken and the operation of the vehicle’s rear underride guard, while the subject RFPs seek the production of Defendant’s internal policies, procedures, and training materials.

Plaintiff argues that “here, it is difficult to understand what information CDS maintains is so confidential that the use of such information within litigation requires a highly restrictive protective order. Nonetheless, if the Court is inclined to enter such an order, it should be the least restrictive possible.” (Pl.’s RFP Mot. 9:16–19.) In opposition, Defendant argues that “its training materials are proprietary and confidential, the disclosure of which would be subject to a Confidentiality Agreement (or Protective Order, as it is referred to in Plaintiffs’ motion).” (Def.’s RFP Opp. 3:8–10.)

Defendant further argues that a sharing provision of any proposed Protective Order is unwarranted, as “there is no justification whatsoever for Plaintiffs’ insistence on being allowed to share this information with non-parties, whatever their particular circumstances might be.” (Id. at 4:8–10.) On reply, Plaintiff correctly argues that the burden rests with Defendant, as the responding party, to show why the protective order is necessary, but “CDS provides no company representative declarations, no examples of how the information being sought could be used by competitors or how it keeps this information secret.” (Pl.’s Rog. Reply 3:24–26.) Plaintiff further argues that “California law provides that sharing provisions, which allow attorneys in similar litigation to have access to discovery materials produced in another case, ‘is an effective means to insure full and fair disclosure.’” (Pl.’s RFP Reply, 3:5–8, quoting Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 589.) “Moreover, the provision permitting the use of confidential documents with mock jurors in focus groups should also be allowed, as it is critical for plaintiffs to be able to prepare for trial in a complex case with all the materials available.” (Id. at 3:8–11.)

The Court finds that the subject responses are properly subject to a protective order limiting their dissemination to parties involved in the litigation of the instant action, including but not limited to expert witnesses and mock juror focus groups. However, Plaintiff may not disseminate the discovery materials to any third parties outside of the instant action.  The parties are ordered to draft and sign a protective order consistent with the Court’s order. 

C.    Remaining Discovery Responses

Defendant contends that “Defendants agreed to supplement several responses and intend to do so. Defendants will make every effort to have supplemental responses served prior to the hearing on this motion.” (Def.’s Rog. Opp. 2:1–3.) However, Plaintiff represents that “as of the date for the filing of this Reply, no supplemental responses or documents were received.” (Pl.’s RFP Reply 1:9–10.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders Defendant to supplement its responses as represented in its opposition papers, and to produce responses and responsive documents subject to the Court’s above-outlined Protective Order, within 30 days.

The motions are therefore continued. The parties’ counsel are ordered to meet and further confer either telephonically or in-person within 60 days of Defendant’s service of its supplemental responses, to resolve and/or narrow all remaining discovery issues. Plaintiff’s counsel is to file a declaration with the Court which confirms compliance with this order or explains why no meaningful meet and confer occurred.

CONCLUSION 

The motions are continued to March 27, 2024. Defendant is ordered to supplement its responses as represented in its opposition papers, and to produce responses and responsive documents subject to the Court’s above-outlined Protective Order, within 30 days.  The parties are ordered to draft and sign a protective order consistent with the Court’s order. 

The parties’ counsel are ordered to meet and further confer either telephonically or in-person within 60 days of Defendant’s service of its supplemental responses, to resolve and/or narrow all remaining discovery issues. Plaintiff’s counsel is to file a declaration with the Court which confirms compliance with this order or explains why no meaningful meet and confer occurred.