Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV17747, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 21STCV17747    Hearing Date: October 25, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

Plaintiff Lakhbir Kaur Datt sues Defendants Universal City Studios LLC (sued as Universal Studios, Inc.; hereafter Universal City), Otis Elevator Company (Otis Elevator), and Does 1 through 50 pursuant to an April 4, 2023 First Amended Complaint alleging claims of (1) Common Carrier Liability against Universal City and Does, (2) Negligence against Universal City, Otis, and Does, and (3) Strict Products Liability, (4) Negligent Products Liability, and (5) Breach of Express and Implied Warranties against Otis and Does.

The claims arise from allegations that on or about May 19, 2019, Plaintiff was lawfully on the premises located at 100 Universal City Plaza, Universal City, CA 91608 and that Plaintiff was riding an escalator on the premises that was negligently, carelessly, recklessly trained, operated, controlled, entrusted, managed, maintained, repaired, or tested, such that the escalator was caused to and did suddenly and without warning malfunction and shake with plaintiff standing on it, causing him to fall down, and proximately causing injuries and damages to Plaintiff Dhatt.

In turn, Universal City sues Otis Elevator pursuant to a July 14, 2023 Cross-Complaint alleging claims of (1) Express Contractual Indemnity, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Implied Contractual Indemnity, (4) Contribution, (5) Appointment, and (6) Declaratory Relief.

Motion Before the Court

On December 28, 2022, Universal City served on Plaintiff Dhatt Special Interrogatories (SROGs), Set One.

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff Dhatt served objections to SROGs, Set One.

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff Dhatt served objections and responses to SROGs, Set One.

On April 28, 2023, Universal City served Plaintiff’s counsel with a meet and confer letter regarding supplemental responses to SROGs, Set One.

On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff Dhatt served supplemental responses to SROGs, Set One, including responses to Request No. 22 but not to Request Nos. 23-26.

On May 24, 2023, Universal City served Plaintiff’s counsel with a second meet and confer letter regarding supplemental responses to SROGs, Set One.

On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Plaintiff would not supplement responses to SROGs, Set One, Request Nos. 23-26. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to extend Universal City’s deadline to compel further interrogatory responses until two weeks after an informal discovery conference (IDC) between the parties and the Court took place, with the IDC to be calendared by University City shortly thereafter.

On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel again represented that Plaintiff would not be supplementing responses to SROGs, Set One, Nos. 23-26.

On September 18, 2023, the Court held an IDC between the parties, at which time the parties reached some stipulations regarding outstanding discovery.

On September 25, 2023, Universal City filed a stipulation and proposed order regarding the agreements reached at the September 18, 2023 IDC. Specifically as to special interrogatories, the stipulation agreed that Plaintiff would provide further responses to SROGs, Set One, No. 10 within ten days of receiving certain documents.

On September 27, 2023, the Court signed the stipulation and proposed order.

On October 3, 2023, Universal City filed a separate statement and declaration in support of a motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Dhatt relating to Universal City’s SROGs, Set One, Request Nos. 22-26.

On October 4, 2023, Universal City filed points and authorities, a notice, and a proposed order in support of its motion to compel further interrogatory responses. The points and authorities do not seek monetary sanctions.

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff Dhatt opposed the motion.

On October 18, 2023, Universal City replied to the opposition.

Universal City’s motion is now before the Court.

Motion to Compel Further Responses, Special Interrogatories

Timeliness

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be filed and served within 45 days after the initial verified response or supplemental verified response was personally served or by any specific later date that the discovering party agreed to in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c) [Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, at p. 403].) Extra time is added to the 45 days if the response was served by a method other than personal delivery. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B), 1013, subds. (a), (c), (e), 2016.050.)

Though not raised by the parties, the Court initially notes that the motion is timely.

Universal City’s motion provides that “Defendant’s deadline to file any necessary motion to compel [wa]s October 2, 2023.” (Mot., p. 4.) This deadline was based on the parties’ agreement that any motion to compel further SROGs was due two weeks after the parties IDC, which took place on September 18, 2023. (Mot., Nizam Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. F; see 9/18/23 IDC Minutes.)

This motion was ultimately filed with the Court on October 3 and 4, 2023.

Nevertheless, the motion is timely. The 45-day timeline set out in Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), is only applicable to a motion seeking to compel further responses to an initial verified response or supplemental verified response. A review of Plaintiff Dhatt’s responses to SROGs, Set One, Request Nos. 22-26 show that the responses were unverified. (See Mot., Nizam Decl., Exs. B [initial substantive responses, no verification], D [supplemental substantive response to Request No. 22, also unverified].)

To the extent the parties agreed to an October 2, 2023 deadline, such an agreement was made in the spirit of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), which is inapplicable.

Consequently, the Code did not impose a deadline to make this motion.

Order Compelling Further Interrogatory Responses: GRANTED, in Part.

I. SROGs, Set One, No. 22

SROGs, Set One, No. 22 states: “IDENTIFY all HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS that YOU have received MEDICAL TREATMENT from since May 19, 2015.” (Mot., Separate Statement.)

Plaintiff’s initial response to this interrogatory was made up of objections alone, while Plaintiff’s supplemental response consisted of objections plus a short statement indicating that “Plaintiff is unable to recall” this information. (Mot., Nizam Decl., Exs. B, D; Mot., Separate Statement.)

After review, the Court finds that a further response to this SROG is merited to a degree.

The request is overbroad as to time. The injury alleged in the FAC is alleged to have taken place on May 19, 2019. (FAC, ¶ 12.) It is unclear why Universal City needs medical information dating from four years prior to the alleged injury up through the present date. Neither does Universal City provide that information in the motion, reply brief, or separate statement.

Similarly, the request is overbroad as to scope. Universal City did not qualify its discovery request to health care providers that treated Plaintiff for the injuries alleged in the FAC. Rather, Universal City’s interrogatory seeks information for all health care providers that Plaintiff has consulted since May 19, 2015. As with the timeframe for this request, nowhere in its motion, reply brief, or separate statement does Universal City provide the reasons that this overbroad information is needed.

However, the Court finds that there is nothing burdensome, vague, or ambiguous about this request. It simply requires identification of health care providers from which Plaintiff Dhatt has received medical treatment. Nor does this request ask for “expert opinion” or a “legal conclusion.” Plaintiff is simply asked to provide information related to health care providers that have treated Plaintiff within a specific timeframe. Such a request is relevant to Plaintiff’s physical and mental condition, both of which were put at issue in the FAC. (See, e.g., FAC, ¶ 16.) The Court also notes that Plaintiff Dhatt advances no grounds whatsoever to support objections to this interrogatory based on the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

To the extent that Plaintiff argues that this response “is … straightforward and clear,” the Court disagrees.  Indeed, Plaintiff Dhatt makes contradictory statements in opposing a further response to this interrogatory, such as that she “is not withholding information” as to this interrogatory while simultaneously asserting that, during her deposition, she “identified that her primary care physician in 2019 was Dr. Morris and Dr. Amanda Lee” and “identified Dr. Lynch as her current primary care physician.” (Mot., Separate Statement, p. 4.) None of these three doctors were identified in response to this interrogatory, but Plaintiff admits she had this information at her deposition, undercutting Plaintiff’s credibility. Plaintiff can, at a minimum, provide those health care providers, as well as indicate any other information she has about her medical providers, and what efforts she has made to identify them.

Last, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s references in her opposition to the separate statement to the September 18, 2023 IDC are not persuasive. The Court’s function at an IDC is to attempt to facilitate an agreement as to discovery with limited information at hand, not to make a determination on the merits informed by full briefing and supporting evidence.

Universal City’s motion is therefore GRANTED, in Part, as to compelling a further response to SROGs, Set One, No. 22, with the following modifications: the interrogatory is limited to May 19, 2019 to the present; and the interrogatory is limited to medical treatment—physical, mental, or otherwise—arising from the injuries alleged in the Complaint.

II. SROGs, Set One, Nos. 23-25

SROGs, Set One, No. 23 states: “State all facts supporting YOUR claim that the subject escalator was defective.” (Mot., Separate Statement.)

SROGs, Set One, No. 24 states: “State all facts supporting YOUR claim that the subject escalator was defective in design.” (Mot., Separate Statement.)

SROGs, Set One, No. 25 states: “State all facts supporting YOUR claim that the subject escalator was defective in manufacture.” (Mot., Separate Statement.)

In response to these interrogatory requests, Plaintiff provided identical objections, as well as nearly identical substantive responses lifted almost verbatim from the FAC.

After review, the Court determines that further responses are merited to these interrogatories.

Plaintiff Dhatt’s FAC alleges defects in the subject escalator, as well as defects in design and manufacturing. (See, e.g., FAC, ¶¶ 38-39.) These interrogatory requests are thus clearly not irrelevant, nor are they overly broad, burdensome, vague, or ambiguous. While the Court can understand why Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory based on calling for an expert opinion or on calling for a legal conclusion, Plaintiff has nevertheless advanced these defects in her FAC. Plaintiff could have alleged that a simple malfunction took place, shaking the subject escalator, thus causing her to fall and suffer injuries. Instead, Plaintiff Dhatt alleged defects based on design and manufacturing. She must have had a basis for including such allegations in the FAC, for which reason she cannot now turn around and hide from discovery requesting that she explain the grounds for those allegations. As for Plaintiff’s objections based on the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, the Court finds no basis for these objections. Interrogatories, by their nature, are responded to with the assistance of counsel. (Field v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 703, 708.)

To the extent that Plaintiff argues that her responses are “clear and straightforward,” the Court disagrees. The responses to these interrogatories essentially repeat the allegations in the FAC without elaborating the actual factual grounds, even if based on information and belief, for alleging that the subject escalator was defective, let alone defective in design or manufacturing.

Universal City’s motion is therefore GRANTED as to compelling a further response to SROGs, Set One, Nos. 23-25, with no modifications by the Court.

III. SROGs, Set One, No. 26

SROGs, Set One, No. 26 states: “State all facts supporting YOUR claim that the defect in the subject escalator proximately caused the harm alleged in the Complaint.”

Plaintiff responded to this interrogatory with the same objections raised to the above interrogatory requests and with a substantive response largely reading like the FAC’s allegations.

After review, the Court finds that a further response is merited to this interrogatory.

Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. This interrogatory is clearly relevant as to causation and is in no way overly broad, burdensome, vague, or ambiguous. Moreover, no expert opinion or legal conclusion is called for. Plaintiff is simply being asked why she attributes her physical and mental injuries to the alleged malfunction on the subject escalator. As for Plaintiff’s objections based on the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, the Court finds no basis for these objections.

To the extent that Plaintiff argues that she has made a “clear and straightforward response, the Court disagrees. The interrogatory response provides that “said escalator malfunctioned causing plaintiff to fall down the SUBJECT ESCALATOR proximately inflicting serious, severe, and permanent injuries to said plaintiff's person.” Plaintiff’s response also provides that as a result of the malfunction, she “sustain[ed] injuries to her body, and shock and injury to her nervous system and person, all of which said injuries have caused and continue to cause the plaintiff great physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering.” (Mot., Separate Statement, p. 18.)

While these statements are somewhat responsive, they could be clearer as to the type of injuries sustained and how the subject elevator malfunctioning caused that harm. Indeed, Plaintiff’s response is rather vague as to the causal link between the alleged malfunction and Plaintiff’s mental injuries. Though Plaintiff admits that she has served discovery responses providing that she sustained a hip fracture as a result of the May 19, 2019 incident, this information is not included in this interrogatory response. Moreover, even if Universal City has a video of the alleged incident, Plaintiff is under an obligation to provide responses to relevant discovery, such as the interrogatory posed here, unless Plaintiff raises a proper objection, which Plaintiff fails to do.

Universal City’s motion is therefore GRANTED as to compelling a further response to SROGs, Set One, No. 26, with no modifications by the Court. 

Conclusion

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Universal Studios LLC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lakhbir Kaur Dhatt’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED, in Part, as explained above.

Plaintiff Lakhbir Kaur Dhatt is ORDERED to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 22-26—with request No. 22 modified above—within 20 calendar days of this ruling.