Judge Brian F. Gasdia, Case Number: 23NWCV01574, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Brian F. Gasdia, Case: 23NWCV01574, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01574 Hearing Date: June 11, 2025 Dept: R

ATTIA v. JAY BHARAT LODGING, LLC

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01574

HEARING: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 at 10:30 a.m.

I. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Requests for Production of Documents (set one) is GRANTED.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

The Court notes that a Notice of Reassignment was filed in this case on May 5, 2025 which states that effective June 2, 2025, this action was reassigned to Judge Brian F. Gasdia as an individual, direct calendaring judge for all purposes, including trial, in Dept. R.

Moving Party(s) to give notice.

BACKGROUND

This “slip-and-fall” premises liability action was filed by Plaintiff ASHLEY ATTIA (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant JAY BHARAT LODGING, LLC (“Defendant”) and DOES 1-150 on May 23, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that “on or about June 17, 2022, PLAINTIFF was a paying guest at the HOTEL. And at such time the PLAINTIFF slipped and injured herself while in the HOTEL by slipping and falling on a surface that had not been cleaned, cleared, and/or made safe.” (Complaint ¶26.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Negligence;

(2) Premises Liability; and

(3) Negligent Hiring and Supervision

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

On November 8, 2024, Defendant served Requests for Production of Documents (set one) on Plaintiff. (Flood Decl., ¶4, Ex. A.)

On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff served Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (set one), with verifications. (Flood Decl., ¶5, Ex. B.)

Defendant moves for an Order compelling Plaintiff’s compliance with her written statements in response to Request for Production of Documents (set one) Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 14-19.

The discovery at issue, accompanied by Plaintiff’s relevant responses thereto, are summarized as follows:

· RPD No. 1.

ALL DOCUMENTS relating to the medical treatment received by YOU arising from this INCIDENT, including but not limited to, any and all medical reports or records, diagnostic images, correspondences from treating physicians, medical billings, or status and/or prognosis reports.

Plaintiff complies in whole with the production of Exhibits 1-31 served herewith. Discovery is ongoing and Responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as new information becomes available.

· RDP No. 4.

Any and all written statements taken or received by you from any witness to this INCIDENT or from any party to this incident.

Plaintiff complies in whole with the production of Exhibit 33 served herewith. Discovery is ongoing and Responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as new information becomes available.

· RPD No. 5.

All photographs, video tapes, recordings, diagrams, representations or reproductions of any location or accident scene involved in the INCIDENT which is the subject of this action.

Plaintiff complies in whole with the production of Exhibit “34.” Discovery is ongoing and Responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as new information becomes available.

· RDP No. 7.

All photographs, video tapes, recordings, diagrams, representations or reproductions of any party involved in the INCIDENT which is the subject of this action.

Plaintiff complies in whole with the production of Exhibit “34.” Discovery is ongoing and Responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as new information becomes available.

· RPD No. 14.

Any and all documents that support YOUR contention that propounding party was negligent, as alleged in your action.

Plaintiff complies in whole with the production of Exhibits 1-34 served herewith. Discovery is ongoing and Responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as new information becomes available.

· RPD No. 15.

Any photos YOU intend to show at the time of trial related to YOUR injuries and/or claim for damages.

Plaintiff complies in whole with the production of Exhibit “34” served herewith. Discovery is ongoing and Responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as new information becomes available.

· RPD. No 16.

All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and the propounding party relating to the subject INCIDENT.

Plaintiff complies in whole with the production of Exhibit “35” served herewith. Discovery is ongoing and Responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as new information becomes available.

· RPD. No. 17.

All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third-party relating to YOUR injuries alleged form the subject INCIDENT, including but not limited to, communications between YOU and YOUR spouse, partner, family, employer, friend, or other third-party.

Plaintiff complies in whole with the production of Exhibit “34.” Discovery is ongoing and Responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as new information becomes available.

· RPD. No. 18.

Any and all documents identified in YOUR response to form interrogatories #1 served concurrently herewith.

· RPD No. 19.

Any and all documents identified in YOUR response to special interrogatories #1 served concurrently herewith.

Defendant argues that an Order to compel Plaintiff’s compliance is necessary because “[a]lthough Plaintiff indicated in several of her responses that she produced ‘Exhibits’ in response to the Requests, Plaintiff insisted that Defendant sign a protective order before making any production.” (Flood Decl., ¶6.) To date, Plaintiff has not produced any documents. Defendant moves for an Order compelling Plaintiff to comply with her own representations regarding the production of documents.

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that “the medical records at issue in this motion extend well beyond the scope of Plaintiff’s medical conditions relevant to this case.” (Opp. 3:5-6.) As noted above, in a separately filed Motion, Plaintiff moves for entry of a protective order.

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling… thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (CCP §2031.320(a).) After a verified statement of compliance is received, there are no longer disputes over the legitimacy of the requests, objections, or the propounding party’s right to the documents—the propounding party has the right to compel compliance with the responding party’s statement of compliance. (See generally Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 902-903.)

As to RPD Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 14-19, Plaintiff responded “Plaintiff complies….” (Flood Decl., ¶5, Ex. B.) This is a statement of compliance in response to the discovery. (CCP §2031.210(a).) Plaintiff agreed to produce specific documents; therefore, all such documents must be produced.

The Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce responsive documents as to RPD Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 14-19 by no later than 30 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties. However, documents are to be produced in accordance with the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (below).

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

On November 8, 2024, Defendant propounded: Requests for Production of Documents (set one); Form Interrogatories (set one); Request for Admissions (set one); and Special Interrogatories (set one). (Movroydis Decl., Exs. 1-4.) On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff served her written responses to the discovery at issue. (Id. Exs. 7-10.)

Plaintiff moves for entry of a protective order as follows:

· As to FI Nos. 6.2-6.7, and 17.1; SI Nos. 3-16, 19-20, 34-35, 37-38, 40-41, 43-44, 46-47, 49-50, 52-53, 55-56, and 58-59—Plaintiff seeks an Order permitting her to avail herself of her right to reference documents in lieu of a written response under CCP §§2030.210(a)(2) and 2030.230 and that no further response is required.

· As to RPD Nos. 8, 10, and 13; and SI No. 21—Plaintiff seeks an Order sustaining her objections, pursuant to CCP §§2030.090(b) and 2031.060(b)(1) requiring no further response.

· As to RPD Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 14-19—Plaintiff argues that the records should be disclosed only under the terms set forth in the Proposed Protective Order filed and served concurrently herewith pursuant to CCP §2031.060(b)(5).

Plaintiff argues that good cause exists for the issuance of a protective order on the following grounds: “(1) Defendant seeks personal medical and psychiatric information of Plaintiff without any limitations as to how these records may be used or disclosed to third parties; (2) Defendant seeks documents that are privileged and protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA); (3) [ ] Defendant seeks documents which violate Plaintiff’s constitutional privacy rights; (4) Defendant seeks to abrogate the Plaintiff’s rights set forth under [CCP] §§2030.210(a)(2) and 2030.230; and (5) the Defendant seeks records which violation Plaintiff’s right to attorney-client privilege and attorney client work product as well as expert disclosure procedures laid out under §2034.210 et seq.” (Notice 2:20-27.)

In Opposition, Defendant argues: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely, and that Plaintiff is wrongfully withholding documents; (2) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause for a protective order; and (3) Plaintiff improperly uses a protective order to sustain objections in her discovery responses.

Timeliness

When interrogatories or requests for production of documents have been served, the Code states that the responding party “may promptly move for a protective order.” (See CCP §§2031.060 and 2030.290.)

The Court finds that the Subject Motion for Protective Order was filed within a reasonable time after the parties’ good faith meet and confer efforts to informally resolve the issue of the level of confidential protection necessary failed. Plaintiff’s Motion is not untimely.

As to RPD Nos. 8, 10, and 13; and SI No. 21 – Waiver

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is wrongfully withholding documents because Plaintiff “did not object to the production of documents on the grounds that the parties have not executed a confidentiality agreement.” (Motion 6:3-5.)

“Courts have concluded that the Legislature requires objections in the initial responses… to avoid waiver of privilege.” (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273.)

As argued in Reply, Plaintiff timely asserted privacy and physician-patient privilege in her responses to the discovery at issue. Plaintiff now moves for entry of a protective order to protect Plaintiff’s right to privacy and based on protected patient privileges, which were asserted in Plaintiff’s responses to the discovery at issue. Once objections are asserted, the privilege is preserved.

The Court does not find that Plaintiff waived her right to object to the subject discovery.

However, the Court does not decide or adjudicate at this time whether Plaintiff’s objections are properly asserted— that issue is more appropriately decided on a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. The substance of Plaintiff’s objections/responses are not properly at issue in this Motion for Protective Order.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for entry of a protective order to “sustain her objections” to RPD Nos. 8, 10, and 13; and SI No. 21, or on privacy/attorney work product privilege grounds is DENIED.

As to FI Nos. 6.2-6.7, and 17.1; SI Nos. 3-16, 19-20, 34-35, 37-38, 40-41, 43-44, 46-47, 49-50, 52-53, 55-56, and 58-59 – Right to Reference Documents

Plaintiff seeks a protective order permitting Plaintiff to reference documents in lieu of written responses under CCP §§2030.210(a)(2) and 2030.230.

Under CCP §2030.210(a)(2), it is proper for the party responding to discovery to exercise their option to produce writings in lieu of written responses. (Id.)

CCP §2030.230 states: “If the answer to the interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Id.)

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (CCP §2030.300(a).)

Consequently, the Court also declines, at this time, to issue any decision as to whether Plaintiff has substantiated the need to produce documents from which responsive information may be derived in lieu of providing written responses to each interrogatory at issue. To the extent that Defendant finds Plaintiff’s responses lacking or incomplete, Defendant may move to compel Plaintiff’s further responses. If Defendant elects to do so, then Plaintiff will be forced to support her exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP §2030.230. The substance of Plaintiff’s objections/responses are not properly at issue in this Motion for Protective Order.

Plaintiff’s request for entry of a protective order permitting Plaintiff to reference documents in lieu of written responses under CCP §§2030.210(a)(2) and 2030.230 is DENIED.

As to RPD Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 14-19 – Confidential Medical Information

Plaintiff is not opposed to the production of documents responsive to these RPDs. However, given the fact that RPD Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 14-19 seek Plaintiff’s medical information, Plaintiff moves for entry of a protective order to protect her right to medical privacy.

In Opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for a protective order.

Medical records fall within the zone of privacy protected by the California Constitution. (See Davis v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1013.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of a Protective Order as to RPD Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 14-19 is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that a protective order should be entered to govern the disclosure of implicated responses and documents produced or that are to be produced throughout the course of discovery. (CCP §2031.060(b).) It is ORDERED that responses produced by Plaintiff in response to RPD Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 14-19 are “Confidential”. The Confidential documents and information shall be treated by all parties as confidential. Except upon the prior written consent of Plaintiff, or upon further order of this Court, the Confidential documents and information may be shown, disseminated, or disclosed only to: the parties of this litigation and/or their counsel of record in this case; or employees of counsel or of associated counsel who assist in the preparation of this case; or experts and consultants retained by the parties to this litigation.

MONETARY SANCTIONS

Given the mixed rulings with respect to both Motions, both parties’ requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED. The parties are encouraged to make good faith efforts to informally resolve their discovery disputes before resorting to motion practice.

The Court notes that there are approximately ten (10) upcoming discovery motions scheduled to be heard in this case. In the event that the Court finds that the parties have not exhausted their meet and confer obligations per Code, the parties’ discovery motions will be continued and the parties will be ordered to make further efforts to meet and confer in good faith. If, after exhausting those efforts counsel are unable to informally resolve their discovery disputes, counsel will be instructed to submit a Joint Statement outlining any remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required, which would require each side to substantiate their positions.

Website by Triangulus