Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV07480, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07480    Hearing Date: October 2, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff Lita Abella (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff alleges she was sitting in her seat at the Sofi Stadium on February 13, 2022, when a spectator several rows above her, fell over the rows and hit Plaintiff in the back, causing injuries. (FAC ¶ 13-22.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hollywood Park Management Company, LLC (“Defendant”) owned or controlled the stadium and alleges various defects with the stadium seating such as “the stadium seating lacked an appropriate, necessary, properly designed, assembled, well-constructed and adequately maintained seat height such that it was foreseeable a reasonable person at Sofi Stadium walking or standing in the Sofi Stadium rows, and using them in a reasonably foreseeable manner, could and would lose their balance and fall several rows beneath them, without any way to catch themselves.” (FAC ¶ 32.)

On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff propounded Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set Three and Request for Production of Documents, Set Three. (Ortiz Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. D.) On June 21, 2024, Defendant served responses with only objections. (Id. ¶ 8, Exh. E.) Plaintiff asserts the responses are deficient.

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, numbers 63 to 76. Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three numbers 57 to 66. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes. No reply has been filed.

MEET AND CONFER

On April 16, 2024 and September 10, 2024, the parties participated in IDCs related to this matter. The issues were not resolved.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Compel Further Response to Special Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that “on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:¿ 

¿ 

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.¿ 

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.¿ 

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”¿ 

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b)(1).) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)¿¿ 

¿ 

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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. § 2030.300(d).)¿¿¿

II. Compel Further Responses to Request for Production

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:¿ 

¿ 

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.¿ 

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.¿ 

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.¿¿ 

A response consisting of an objection must specify with particularly the document being objected to, and, if based on privilege, must provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of this claim, including if necessary, a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240 (b), (c).) 

¿ 

The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery and include a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b).)

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).)¿¿¿ 

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further 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 (h).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, numbers 63 to 76 and Request for Production of Documents, Set Three numbers 57 to 66. Plaintiff contends the discovery is limited to prior incidents where guests fell due to the design of the stadium seating (seat height, seat design, and attached cupholder). (Motion, 9.) The Court finds that this limit is relevant to the issues raised in the complaint. (FAC ¶ 32.) The discovery at issue also seeks information on witnesses to the incident, the name of the system that the Sofi Stadium uses to record injuries, and the name of the video/security system Sofi Stadium uses.

Defendant objects that the discovery is vague, overbroad, duplicative, subject to the attorney/client privilege, work product, and is irrelevant.  

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff previously defined “factually similar incidents” to occurrences of “an unknown guest tripping and falling onto another seated guest and causing injury to the seated guest”. (Opp., 5; Hogoboom Decl. ¶ 25; Bradley Decl. ¶ 3.) However, that argument appears moot as Plaintiff has since then propounded new discovery requests with different definitions.

Next, Defendant argues that requests seeking information on injuries that occurred after the February 13, 2022 incident are irrelevant to prove notice. Defendant also contends the similar incidents where a guest was transported to the hospital, or where a McCormick Ambulance Report was generated, violates third-party privacy rights. However, it does not appear on the face of the discovery requests that this would involve any personal medical information, as the discovery is only seeking information about the incident that led to a hospital transport. However, the Court notes that Request for Production number 61 requests documents from McCormick Ambulance. To the extent these documents contain any personal medical information, Defendant can redact it accordingly and/or assert a valid objection.  

Defendant contends it has already provided two factually similar incidents, including case numbers, in supplemental responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories, Set Two. (Opp., 7.) Still, Defendant’s main argument appears to be that incidents involving guests tripping or failing within the stadium seating areas is too broad. However, Defendant provides no facts discussing how the seating areas vary within the stadium to warrant a further limitation on certain sections which may contain the similar design defect that Plaintiff is alleging. On the other hand, it does not appear that “substantially similar incidents” should include all falls within the spectator seating areas, absent some connection with the design defect that Plaintiff is alleging. The Court notes that Special Interrogatories, Set Three did contain a more broad definition of “substantially similar incidents” and it appears there was no definition in Request for Production, Set Three. As a result, there appears to be some basis for the overbroad objection since “substantially similar incidents” was not expressly limited to falls in the spectator seating areas relating to the design defect.

As for the remaining objections asserted, including based on privilege, Defendant’s opposition provides no basis except for the relevancy of incidents after February 13, 2022. Plaintiff has not filed a reply and fails to set forth the relevancy of such evidence. As a result, discovery should be limited to incidents up to February 13, 2022.

Therefore, the motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Three is granted in part.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, numbers 63 to 76. Defendant shall provide further responses in accordance with the findings in this order within 10 days.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three numbers 57 to 66. Defendant shall serve further responses in accordance with the findings in this order within 10 days.

Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.