Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV18205, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18205    Hearing Date: July 1, 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 August 1, 2023, Plaintiff Shwe Shyan Hwee (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) for injuries related to an alleged attack on a metro train that occurred on May 17, 2023.

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant. Extensions were granted until January 16, 2024. On January 16, 2024, Defendant served responses with mostly objections. The parties met and conferred. On April 11, 2024, an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) was held with a different judicial officer. Plaintiff contends that Defendant agreed to supplement its responses by May 10, 2024, and allow a motion to compel further deadline for June 4, 2024. (Hill Decl. ¶ 12–13.) Defendant did not serve responses by the deadline and asked for an extension to May 31, 2024. Plaintiff did not agree to the extension. However, by May 31, 2024, Defendant had not served any responses. (Id. ¶ 15.)

On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 3–6, 11–15, 17, 19–26, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1–6, 8–20.[1] Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant and counsel.

Defendant opposes this motion and asserts it “intends to provide supplemental responsive information,” but does not indicate that it has served supplemental responses since the filing of this motion. (Opp., 6.) Plaintiff replies and does not assert that supplemental responses have been received.

MEET AND CONFER

As stated above, on April 11, 2024, the parties appeared for a scheduled IDC pursuant to the Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order. Therefore, the IDC requirement has been met. (Min. Order, 4/11/24.)

ANALYSIS

I. Compel Further Response to Special Interrogatories

            A. Legal Standard

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).)¿¿¿

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).) 

B. Discussion

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 3–6, 11–15, 17, 19–26.

Number 3 asks Defendant to identify a person most knowledgeable about the incident. The Court finds Defendant’s objections to be without merit. Defendant also responded that it has yet to determine a PMK for this incident, and that investigations are continuing. Therefore, the response appears to comply with section 2030.220. Accordingly, the motion to compel further is denied. Nonetheless, as Defendant has agreed to supplement this response, Defendant shall provide a supplemental substantive response within 30 days.

Numbers 4, 5, and 6 seek information about “any and all policies, procedures, and practices the Metro had in place … to ensure the safety of its passengers,” to provide a person most knowledgeable, and to describe “any changes the Metro made to its policies, procedures, or practices regarding the safety of its passengers…” The Court agrees with Defendant that these requests are too broad and therefore cover a wide range of policies, procedures, and practices regarding “safety” that would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the motion to compel further is denied.

Number 11 asks: “For each Passenger Incident that occurred on the A Line of the Metro, including its trains and stations, from January 1, 2023, to May 17, 2023, state: 1) the date; 2) the name(s) of the person(s) involved; 3) a concise summary of the circumstances and events.”

Because this interrogatory contains subparts, the motion to compel further is denied. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.060(f) [“No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.”].) In addition, the Court agrees with Defendant that this request is too broad and therefore covers potentially a number of incidents that would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the motion to compel further is denied.

Numbers 12–14 ask to state the number of Passenger Incidents that occurred on various metro lines and stations, “including its trains and stations, each year from 2018 through 2023.”

Defendant objects that these are compound. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.060(f).) The Court agrees. In addition, the Court agrees with Defendant that this request is too broad and therefore covers a number of incidents that would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the motion to compel further is denied.

Numbers 15 asks: “Was any Metro station the site of more Passenger Incidents than the Artesia Station from 2018 to 2023?”

Defendant objects that the interrogatory is burdensome or oppressive. Defendant argues its rail system consists of 101 stations and six rail lines. Plaintiff is asking Defendant to go through six years of records on a station by station basis. The Court agrees with Defendant that the time period sought is overbroad and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the motion to compel further is denied.

Number 17 asks: “Was any Metro station the site of more Passenger Incidents than Compton Station from 2018 to 2023?”

Defendant objects that the interrogatory is burdensome or oppressive. Defendant argues its rail system consists of 101 stations and six rail lines. Plaintiff is asking Defendant to go through six years of records on a station by station basis. The Court agrees with Defendant that the time period sought is overbroad and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the motion to compel further is denied.

Number 19 asks: “For each “Employee Incident” that occurred on the A Line of the Metro, including its trains and stations, from January 1, 2023, to May 17, 2023, state: 1) the date; 2) the name(s) of the person(s) involved; 3) a concise summary of the circumstances and events.”

Because this contains subparts, the motion to compel further is denied. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.060(f).) In addition, the Court agrees that the request is too broad and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Number 20 asks: “State the number of Employee Incidents that occurred on the A Line of the Metro (f/k/a the Blue Line), including its trains and stations, each year from 2018 through 2023.”

Number 21 asks: “State the number of Employee Incidents that occurred at the Artesia Station of the A Line of the Metro, including its trains and stations, each year from 2018 through 2023.”

Number 22 asks: “State the number of Employee Incidents that occurred at Compton Station of the A Line of the Metro, including its trains and stations, each year from 2018 through 2023.”

Defendant objects that these are compound and overbroad, among other things. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.060(f).) The Court agrees. Therefore, the motion to compel further is denied.

Number 23 asks: “Was any Metro station the site of more Employee Incidents than the Artesia Station from 2018 to 2023?”

Number 25 asks: “Was any Metro station the site of more Employee Incidents than Compton Station from 2018 to 2023?”

The Court agrees with Defendant that the requests are overbroad. Therefore, the motion to compel further is denied. Because numbers 23 and 25 are denied, numbers 24 and 26, which relies on those responses, are also denied. 

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

II. Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Requests for Admissions, and Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1–6, 8–20. The Court notes that these disputed requests are numerous and appear to suffer from similar deficiencies as the special interrogatories. However, because the case was transferred and the parties have not engaged in an informal discovery conference with this court, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and attempt to resolve their disputes informally, including potentially by agreeing to requests narrowed in scope and time. To the extent that an informal resolution is not reached, the parties are ordered to prepare a joint status report, listing the specific discovery request, and any supplemental information regarding each party’s position that is not already provided in each separate statement.

As for the motions to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories, the parties are similarly ordered to meet and confer and the provide any remaining disputes in the joint status report.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.  

Counsel are ordered to appear in person for an informal discovery conference on July 30, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

The joint status report must be filed 5 days in advance of the IDC, with a courtesy copy delivered to the Court by 4:00 p.m.

The hearing on the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is continued to August 20, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The hearings on the Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions are advanced and continued to August 20, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

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