Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV09299, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09299    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff TR (“Plaintiff”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Niloofar Rabbani, filed this action against Defendants, Encino Place, LP and Encino Place, LLC, Elevators Etc., Inc., and Elevators Etc. Gs Inc. for injuries Plaintiff sustained when her left hand became entrapped inside an escalator. 

At this time, Elevators Etc. Inc. (“Elevators”) moves to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and requests for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, against Encino Place, LLC, and to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, against Encino Place, LP (collectively with Encino Place, LLC, the “Encino Defendants”).  Further, Elevators moves to deem request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, admitted against each of the Encino Defendants.  Lastly, Elevators moves to compel the Encino Defendants to comply with Elevators’ request for an inspection of the relevant premises. 

The Encino Defendants filed a combined opposition to Elevators’ written discovery motions and an opposition to the motion to compel inspection.  Elevators filed a combined reply to the oppositions. 

2. Motions to Compel Responses and Deem RFAs Admitted

            Elevators propounded form interrogatories, RFAs, and RPDs, all set one, on each of the Encino Defendants on December 17, 2021.  Elevators asserts that as of filing the instant motions on May 27, 2022, the Encino Defendants had not served responses to any of the subject discovery requests.  Elevators provides that the Encino Defendants’ counsel emailed a link of unspecified documents to Elevators’ counsel on May 12, 2022, but the link contained no responses and no verifications.  Elevators therefore seeks an order compelling each of the Encino Defendants to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs, deeming the RFAs admitted, and imposing sanctions.

            In opposition, the Encino Defendants contend they served verified responses, without objections, to the subject discovery on June 24, 2022.  The Encino Defendants contend that as a result, there is no basis to grant any of the motions to compel responses or deem RFAs admitted.

            Elevators, in reply, asserts that the Encino failed to provide verifications for their responses until August 20,2022, and that the responses still contained improper objections.  Nonetheless, Elevators does not dispute that it has now received verified responses to the discovery requests.  To the extent that Elevators contends any responses are incomplete or inadequate, Elevators must file a motion to compel further responses concerning the relevant discovery responses. 

The Court finds that the motions to compel and deem RFAs admitted are moot in light of the responses served on Elevators prior to the hearing.  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)

Sanctions are mandatory.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)  Because the Encino Defendants did not serve responses to the subject discovery until after Elevators filed these motions, and the Encino Defendants do not otherwise establish justification for failing to serve timely responses, sanctions are warranted.  However, Elevators will not be awarded the full amount requested. 

As to the motions to compel and deem RFAs admitted against Encino Place, LLC, Elevators is awarded 0.5 hours for each form motion [1.5 hours total] and 0.5 hours for appearing at the hearing as it relates to the motions against Encino Place, LLC for a total of two hours of attorney time at the reasonable rate of $195 per hour.  Accordingly, Elevators is awarded $390.00 in attorney fees.  Further, Elevators is awarded three motion filing fees of $60 each, or $180 total, as costs.  Elevators seeks sanctions against Encino Place, LLC and Encino Place, LLC’s attorney of record.  Elevators does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Encino Place, LLC directly.  Sanctions are imposed against Encino Place, LLC’s attorney of record only.  Encino Place, LLC’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Elevators, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $570.00, within twenty days.

As to the motions to compel and deem RFAs admitted against Encino Place, LP, Elevators is awarded 0.5 hours for each form motion [1.5 hours total] and 0.5 hours for appearing at the hearing as it relates to the motions against Encino Place, LP for a total of two hours of attorney time at the reasonable rate of $195 per hour.  Accordingly, Elevators is awarded $390.00 in attorney fees.  Further, Elevators is awarded three motion filing fees of $60 each, or $180 total, as costs.  Elevators seeks sanctions against Encino Place, LP and Encino Place, LP’s attorney of record.  Elevators does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Encino Place, LP directly.  Sanctions are imposed against Encino Place, LP’s attorney of record only.  Encino Place, LP’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Elevators, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $570.00, within twenty days.

3. Motion to Compel Inspection of Premises

Any party may obtain discovery by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, of control of any other party to the action.  (CCP § 2031.010, subd. (a).)  A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to photograph, test, or sample any tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.  (CCP § 2031.010, subd. (c).)  A party may demand that any other party allow the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to enter onto any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.  (CCP § 2031.010, subd. (d).)

The party to whom a demand for inspection has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item with: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection; or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection.  (CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

In this case, Elevators asserts that the Encino Defendants are the owners of the premises and escalator where Plaintiff alleges she was injured, so Elevators served a request for inspection, imaging and testing on the Encino Defendants on December 21, 2022, setting an inspection of the relevant escalator for February 8, 2022.  Elevators contends that the Encino Defendants unilaterally stopped the inspection from proceeding and despite attempts to meet and confer, the Encino Defendants have not provided any new dates to allow the inspection to go forward. 

The Encino Defendants, in opposition, contend they have attempted to solicit dates from Elevators for months for the inspection and have agreed to the first and only dates offered from Elevators.  The Encino Defendants provide that the inspection was scheduled for August 23, 2022, so there is no basis for the motion because the escalator has been made available for inspection.  Further, the Encino Defendants assert that at no time since serving the original demand has Elevators ever served a new demand specifying a date for the inspection.

However, Elevators, in reply, provides that the inspection did not go forward on August 23, 2022, because the night before the inspection, the Encino Defendants attempted to impose new conditions regarding payment relating to the inspection of the escalator. 

            The evidence shows that the Encino Defendants represented they would allow comply with the inspection demand, but to date, the inspection has not gone forward.  Moreover, the Encino Defendants do not dispute that the inspection seeks relevant information or provide any reasoning as to why the inspection should not be allowed. 

            Therefore, Elevators’ motion is granted.  The Encino Defendants are ordered to make the subject escalator available for inspection within 30 days at a date and time noticed by Elevators.  Elevators must give at least five days’ notice of the inspection (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service).    

Sanctions are warranted.  (CCP § 2031.320(b).)  Elevators is awarded one hour for preparing the motion and 0.5 hours for appearing at the hearing as it relates to this motion all at the reasonable rate of $195, for a total attorney fees award of $292.50.  Further, Elevators is awarded the motion filing fee of $60.  Sanctions are sought and imposed against the Encino Defendants and the Encino Defendants’ counsel, jointly and severally.  They are ordered to pay sanctions to Elevators, by and through its attorney of record, in the total amount of $352.50, within twenty days. 

Elevators 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 8^th day of September 2022