Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV03850, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03850    Hearing Date: March 19, 2025    Dept: F51

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Motion filed: 12/2/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Steven Segura (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Chedraui USA, Inc. (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, Nos. 2, 6, and 20–21. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,560.00 to be imposed against Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. The Court orders Defendant to provide further code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Set One, Nos. 2, 6, and 20–21, within 30 days. The Court imposes $1060.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiffs allege that on 9/4/22, while patronizing Defendant’s business, Plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell as a result of a dangerous condition on the property. (Compl. ¶ 8.) On 12/20/23, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; and (3) Loss of Consortium. On 2/5/24, Defendant filed its answer.

On 2/7/24, Plaintiff served his RFPs, Set One, on Defendant. (Decl. of Mark Lieber ¶ 5.) On 6/10/24, Defendant served its objections thereto. (Id. at ¶ 12.) On 8/30/24, Defendant served its responses to the subject discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 13.) On 10/21/24, Defendant served its verifications thereto. (Id. at ¶ 19.)

On 12/2/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to the subject RFPs. On 2/14/25, Plaintiff filed an amended notice of the motion. On 3/6/25, Defendant filed its opposition to the motion. On 3/12/25, Plaintiff filed his reply.

//

//

ANALYSIS

California law requires a responding party to respond to each request for production of documents with either a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) A statement of compliance must state that the production will be allowed either in whole or in part. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220.) A statement of inability to comply “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code. Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) A propounding party may move for an order compelling further response to a discovery request if it decides that “an objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to RFP Nos. 2, 6, and 20–21, which seek:

RFP No. 2: “All photographs, video and the like taken from YOUR store surveillance system which shows plaintiff Steven Segura at YOUR STORE at any time on September 4, 2022.”

RFP No. 6: “All documents which show the original purchase of the REFRIGERATED MERCHANDISE DISPLAY in the DELI SECTION at the SUBJECT STORE that was malfunctioning and created the puddle of water, as described in the Incident Report attached as Exhibit 1.”

RFP No. 20: “All documents reflecting the names, address, and telephone number of the individuals and/or entities that inspected, swept, cleaned, and maintained the SUBJECT STORE at any time on September 4, 2022, after the SUBJECT INCIDENT occurred.”

RFP No.  21: “All documents including, but not limited to, diagrams, maps, blueprints, schematics, and other documents which show the layout of the SUBJECT STORE, including the location of the entrance doors, cash registers, REFRIGERATED MERCHANDISE DISPLAY, and the DELI SECTION at the time of the SUBJECT INCIDENT.”

A.    Meet and Confer 

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating, “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2016.040.) 

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that beginning on 9/5/24, he and Defendant’s counsel met and conferred to discuss the issues raised herein, but the parties were unable to come to a resolution. (Lieber Decl. ¶¶ 14–18, 20.) Therefore, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(2).

B.     Defendant’s Responses

In response to the subject RFPs, Defendant asserted objections, a statement that it would comply with RFP No. 2, and a statement of inability to comply with RFP No. 6. Plaintiff argues that “Defendant’s objections were without merit, and its responses were evasive and incomplete. Defendant failed to provide the requested documents.” (Pl.’s Mot. 3:15–16.) In opposition, Defendant asserts that no further responses are warranted because “Defendant has not withheld any information. Defendant has informed Plaintiff that the copy of the surveillance produced in discovery is the only copy. Defendant has informed Plaintiff that no records of maintenance for the displays in question exists. Plaintiff further seeks irrelevant information to the litigation as no diagram of the store exists with the information he requests, nor would it be relevant in identifying how the incident occurred.” (Def.’s Opp. 3:4–8.)

In reply, Plaintiff contends that “although defendant provided a further response to request for production number 2, it is essentially identical to the original response to request number 2 and does not include an unedited videotape of the incident. Defendant continues to provide a videotape missing the key 52 seconds showing the incident. No further response, or production, was provided to requests 6, 20, and 21.” (Pl.’s Reply 3:8–12.) “It is incredulous to believe that defendant is not in possession, custody, or control of the unedited tape and these 52 seconds somehow vanished and no longer exist. The unedited tape must be produced.” (Id. at 3:21–23.)

With respect to RFP No. 6, Plaintiff argues that “obtaining purchase records is one of the only ways to determine necessary background information on the merchandise display, including the manufacturer and model, how old it was at the time of the incident, the cost, the warranty information, and other relevant information.” (Id. at 4:2–5.) With respect to RFP No. 20, “Defendant failed to provide any meaningful response or the requested documents.” (Id. at 4:12.) With respect to RFP No. 21, “such documents could be used at deposition and trial as an exhibit to show the movement throughout the store of plaintiff and defendant’s employees. Certainly, defendant has the requested documents in one form or another.” (Id. at 4:15–18.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the requested documents are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s personal injury claims and finds that Defendant’s responses are evasive. The Court agrees that the production of the requested video, edited to omit 52 seconds showing the incident, is evasive. Moreover, Defendant’s response to RFP No. 6 fails to “specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) To the extent that Defendant is unable to comply with RFP Nos. 20 and 21, it likewise fails to state as such as required by the Code of Civil Procedure.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Nos. 2, 6, and 20–21.

C.    Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff requests $2,560.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant, which encompasses (1) 3 hours of Plaintiff’s attorney’s time spent preparing the motion; (2) 1 hour preparing Plaintiff’s reply; and (3) 1 hour preparing for and appearing at the instant hearing, at counsel’s hourly billing rate of $500.00 per hour. (Lieber Decl. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff also seeks to recover $60.00 in filing fees. (Ibid.) In granting the instant motion, the Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $1060.00 against Defendant.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. The Court orders Defendant to provide further code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Set One, Nos. 2, 6, and 20–21, within 30 days. The Court imposes $1060.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant.