Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV45027, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45027    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff, Rhonda Fagan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Embassy Suites by Hilton Los Angeles Downey (“Defendant”), Stig Hedlund, Deborah Berry, and Maurice Casaus for injuries arising from a slip-and-fall accident that occurred on December 14, 2019. The complaint asserts one cause of action for premises liability.

On March 24, 2022, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, all Set One. (Powers Decl. ¶ 3.) On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff provided initial discovery responses, which Defendant found to be deficient. On August 3, 2022, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) concerning Plaintiff’s deficient responses. The Court’s Minute Order regarding the IDC states:

After discussion, the parties agree that plaintiff will produce all medical records to prior injuries and current injuries related to the following body parts; knees, back, head, brain and jaw. Plaintiff to identify all injuries and prior associated injuries. Circumstances of fall and specific injury. Plaintiff is to provide prior medical records related to the knee, back and neurological exam. Plaintiff is also to provide photos and incident reports. 

            After the IDC, Plaintiff served additional responses on August 25, 2022.  On September 7, 2022, Defendant brought the instant motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One.  Defendant also attempted to seek sanctions.

            Plaintiff filed an opposition, arguing that Defendant’s notice of motion and motion are procedurally defective, and the discovery requests seek information that is not relevant to the case.  Plaintiff also provided that further responses and verifications were emailed after the filing of the Motion to Compel Further on September 9, 2022. 

            In reply, Defendant acknowledged that further and amended discovery responses were provided after the motion was filed.  However, Defendant does not indicate that the parties met and conferred about them, and no separate statement was provided concerning them. 

            The motion is denied for several reasons. 

First, the Court cannot locate a Notice of Motion giving proper notice of the instant motion.  The Notice of Motion filed on September 7, 2022, notices the matter for hearing on October 28, 2022.  There is no Proof of Service of any Notice of Continuance of the hearing on the Motion.  It looks as if there are paragraphs missing from the Notice of Motion.  The Motion can be denied for this reason alone. (Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.)

Second, the motion to compel further is moot in light of the responses served on Defendant prior to the hearing.  After the new responses were served, the parties should have met and conferred further and engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference.  

Third, the motion lacks a separate statement concerning the current discovery dispute between the parties.  There is no separate statement that describes all information necessary to rule on each disputed discovery request without reference to any other document.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)).

Finally, the request for sanctions is improperly made.  Section 2023.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.”  In Defendant’s Notice of Motion, Defendant requests sanctions only in the caption of the document.  However, it does not identify against whom the sanction is being sought or the type of sanction requested. 

Thus, the motion is denied.

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 13^th day of January 2023