Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV18825, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18825    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff, Anna Stickle (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”) and Darrin Williams for injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained on August 25, 2019, while at Walmart’s store when a Walmart associate bumped into Plaintiff with a cart while Plaintiff was checking out. 

On April 28, 2022, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) concerning multiple discovery disputes, including Defendant’s request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set four, served on Plaintiff.  At the conclusion of the IDC, Plaintiff was to serve further responses to Defendant within 10 days.  (Min. Order April 28, 2022.) 

On May 24, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel further responses to RPDs, set four, against Plaintiff.  Defendant asserts that Plaintiff to date has not served further verified responses on Defendant as Plaintiff had agreed to do at the IDC.  Any opposition to the motion was due on or before July 13, 2022.  To date, the court has not received an opposition.  On July 19, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the motion. 

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses

CCP § 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.

Here, Defendant moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set four, Nos. 124.  RPD No. 124 demands, “Please produce each photograph contained in Exhibit C to YOUR document production served on February 5, 2021 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1 for YOUR reference) in its original form with metadata.”  (Mot. Samyan Decl. Exh. A.)  Defendant asserts that the RPD is seeking photographs Plaintiff previously produced in PDF format to be produced in their original form to allow Defendant a reasonable opportunity to determine the date and time each photo was taken.  Defendant avers the photos specifically relate to Plaintiff’s left leg and foot for which Plaintiff is alleging she sustained injuries as a result of the incident. 

In response to the RPD, Plaintiff asserted multiple objections, which Defendant are meritless.  To the extent that Plaintiff objected to RPD No. 124, it is the burden of the objecting party to support the applicability of a particular privilege or objection.  (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95.)  Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, and thus, does not establish the appropriateness of any objections asserted in the response.  Moreover, Defendant’s evidence establishes the requested information, which Plaintiff previously agreed to provide responses at the IDC, is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries from the incident. 

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs, set four, No. 124 is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve further verified responses to Defendant within 20 days. 

            Sanctions are mandatory.  (CCP § 2031.310(h).)  The court awards Defendant three hours for preparing the motion to compel further responses and one hour for attending the hearing on this matter all at the rate of $195 per hour, for a total attorney’s fees award of $780.00.  Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through its attorney of record, in the total amount of $780.00, within twenty days.  

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 26^th day of July 2022