Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV09485, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV09485 Hearing Date: March 8, 2023 Dept: 28
Defendant Ameron Pole Products LLC’s
Motion for Protective Order
Having considered the moving and opposing
papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On
March 19, 2019, Plaintiff Salvador Ocampos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action
against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), City of Walnut Park
(“Walnut Park”) and City of Huntington Park (“Huntington Park”) for premises
liability.
On
May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed the FAC. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to
include Defendants Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”), Ameron Pole
Products LLC (“APP”) and Foddrill Construction Corporation (“FCC”).
On
July 24, 2019, the Court dismissed Huntington Park, with prejudice, pursuant to
Plaintiff’s request. On June 23, 2022, the Court dismissed FCC, with prejudice.
On
June 17, 2020, the County filed an answer. On June 11, 2020, the County filed a
Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant SCE for indemnity, express indemnity,
breach of contract, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. The County
later amended the complaint to include APP, FCC, Roberto Sanchez Gomez
(“Gomez”), Julio Cesar Anzadula (“Anzadula”) and The Diamond Bus Company, LLC
(“DBC”). On August 26, 2020, SCE filed an answer. On December 28, 2020, APP
filed an answer. On May 2, 2022, the Court dismissed the County and the
County’s cross-complaint, without prejudice.
On
August 7, 2020, SCE field an answer and a Cross-Complaint against
Cross-Defendant APP for total equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault,
declaratory relief and express contractual indemnity. SCE later amended the
Cross-Complaint to include Cross-Defendant Gomez, Anzadula, FCC and DBC. On
October 14, 2020, APP filed an answer. On July 6, 2022, FCC filed an answer.
On
August 26, 2022, APP filed a Motion for Protective Order to be heard on January
6, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to March 8, 2023. On
February 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
Trial
is currently scheduled for June 12, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
APP
requests the Court grant a protective order prohibiting Plaintiff from asking APP’s
PMK questions about APP’s responses to discovery items when said responses were
actually comprised solely of objections by counsel without any substantive
input. APP also requests the Court impose sanctions of $2,860.00 on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff
requests the Court deny the motion. Plaintiff also requests the Court impose
sanctions of $3,614.15 on APP.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Misuse
of the discovery process includes (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner
or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or
oppression, or undue burden and expense; (d) Failing to respond or to submit to
an authorized method of discovery; and (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully
and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit
discovery. CCP § 2023.010.
The
court may grant a protective order to prevent certain behavior at a deposition
if justice so requires or to protect a party from unwarranted annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. CCP § 2025.420. This
includes excluding designated persons other than parties, officers, and
counsel. The court shall impose sanctions against anyone who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the
party acted with substantial justification.
Code
of Civil Procedure §1987.1: (a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a
witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court,
or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the
court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b),
or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity
to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or
directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall
declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other
order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or
oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy
of the person. (b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to
subdivision (a): (1) A party. (2) A witness. (3) A consumer described in
Section 1985.3. (4) An employee described in Section 1985.6. (5) A person whose
personally identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section
1798.79.8 of the Civil Code, is sought in connection with an underlying action
involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights.
DISCUSSION
Protective
Order
APP
requests the Court preclude Plaintiff from asking APP’s PMK questions about
discovery responses that consisted of only objections. APP alleges that this is only done to elicit
responses that would make APP look bad or deceptive. APP states that because
they comprise solely of objections, these are unverified responses.
Plaintiff
is entitled to ask questions about discovery responses containing any response
other than solely a legal objection. For
example, if APP claimed that it was unable to respond to the discovery request
on account of the request “being premature,” Plaintiff is entitled to inquire
as to the efforts made to discovery the information. The answers to questions of this ilk may be
relevant to an argument that APP should be equitably estopped from making
certain assertions at trial. The Court
does not find any of the questions anticipated by counsel for APP to be so
unduly prejudicial, harassing or burdensome to warrant a protective order.
Counsel’s objections during a deposition should be sufficient to navigate the
proposed questions. The Court denies the motion.
The
Court will impose sanctions on APP for lack of substantial justification in
bringing the motion. The Court awards sanctions of $614.15, based on 3 hours of
attorney’s work at a reasonable rate of $200.00 per hour, and one $14.15
opposition fee.
CONCLUSION
Defendant
Ameron Pole Products LLC’s
Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.
Plaintiff Salvador Ocampo’s Request for
Sanctions is GRANTED. APP is ordered to pay Plaintiff $614.15 in sanctions
within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this
ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this
tentative ruling for further instructions.