Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV28973, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28973    Hearing Date: September 26, 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 November 28, 2023, Plaintiff Gianni Pink (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Carlos Roman, United Parcel Service, Inc., and Does 1 to 25 for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident.

Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“Defendant”) now moves for a protective order against Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Requests for Production, Set Two. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020, a court shall limit the scope of discovery if the court “determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” A “court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person.” (Id.)¿The “motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.” (Id.)¿ 

Similarly, courts must restrict the frequency or extent of a discovery method such as interrogatories or inspection of documents if it determines either of the following:  

“(1) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. 

(2) The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.030.) This can be done by moving for a protective order.

Protective Order for Interrogatories

            Regarding interrogatories, the protective order may include, but it not limited to, one or more of the following directions: “(1) That the set of interrogatories, or particular interrogatories in the set, need not be answered. (2) That, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2030.050, the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subd. (b).)

“Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order under Section 2030.090, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as described in Section 2030.050 may propound a greater number of specially prepared interrogatories to another party if this greater number is warranted because of any of the following:

(1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

(2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition.

(3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.040, subd. (a).)

            “If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.040, subd. (b).)

            If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the party provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on terms and conditions that are just. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subd. (c).)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, 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., § 2030.090, subd. (d).)

Protective Order for Request for Production

“When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.060, subd. (a).)

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: (1) That all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be produced or made available at all. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.060, subd. (b).)

“The party or affected person who seeks a protective order regarding the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of electronically stored information on the basis that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.060, subd. (c).)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, 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., 2031.060, subd. (h).)

MEET AND CONFER

The Declaration of Alexis Morgenstern, Defendant’s counsel, states that there was an attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel. However, no further description of the meet and confer effort is provided. (Morgenstern Decl. ¶ 3.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant asserts that on June 26, 2024, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which include 97 interrogatories, and are thus overly excessive for this case involving a motor vehicle accident. Defendant also contends Plaintiff failed to provide a declaration justifying the interrogatories past 35, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.050. (Motion, 4.) Defendant asks the Court for an order shielding it from having to respond beyond the first 35 interrogatories.

            Defendant also moves for a protective order against Requests for Production, Set Two, which contain 150 requests.[1] Again, Defendant argues this amount is excessive and intended to harass.

            In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Carlos Roman (“Roman”), who was allegedly driving a UPS Truck when the incident occurred, was deposed on April 23, 2024.

Plaintiff argues that Roman testified inconsistently about his speed (first stating he was traveling 10 miles per hour, and then 25 miles per hour). Plaintiff also argues Roman’s testimony questions whether he came to a complete stop before the stop sign where the incident occurred, and whether he has a recurring issue with braking too quickly. There is also evidence that Roman’s supervisor talked to a witness at the scene of the incident and took photographs. Additionally, contrary to Defendant’s assertions, Plaintiff argues the dashcam footage of the incident shows that Roman was accelerating as he approached the stop sign. (Zar Decl. ¶ 8.)

            Upon reviewing the discovery requests and given Plaintiff’s contentions above, the Court finds Plaintiff has met her burden to justify the number of interrogatories served. In reply, Defendant contends a declaration under 2030.050 has been served but it defective. However, based on the discussion above, the Court finds the information provided is sufficient. As for the Request for Production, Defendant fails to show that the requests are irrelevant or too burdensome to warrant a protective order.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s motions for protective orders against Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Requests for Production, Set Two.

Moving party shall provide notice and file a proof of service of such.