Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV03486, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03486    Hearing Date: January 22, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On February 16, 2023, Plaintiff Haley Chapman, individually and as successor-in-interest to Noelle Glotfelty (Decedent), filed this action against various Defendants for (1) wrongful death, (2) survival cause of action, and (3) negligence.

            The complaint stems from the death of Decedent, who committed suicide inside a Marriott hotel room. Plaintiff is Decedent’s daughter. (Compl. ¶ 1.) On February 24, 2022, Decedent checked into the hotel amidst a mental health crisis. (Id., ¶ 22.) Upon becoming concerned that Decedent did not appear for a scheduled visit, Decedent’s relatives contacted the Moorpark Police Department, which was staffed and operated by the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department. (Id., ¶ 23.) Two deputies, Defendant Scott and Defendant Sperber, arrived at the relatives’ home and were advised of Decedent’s mental issues and threats of suicide. (Id., ¶ 24.) The deputies eventually identified the Marriott hotel in Agoura Hills as the location where Decedent was staying. (Id., ¶ 25.)   

            When the deputies arrived at the hotel, Defendant Gamboa, the only manager working at the time, refused to disclose the room number of Decedent based on hotel policy. (Compl. ¶ 27.) The deputies advised Gamboa to call the operations manager and assistant general manager, neither of whom answered. (Id., ¶ 28.) The deputies were given permission to walk throughout the hotel premises to try to verbally locate Decedent. (Id., ¶ 29.) After 30 to 40 minutes of searching in vain, the deputies were ordered to cease their search and instead respond to another missing persons report. (Ibid.) The deputies left at around 12:45am on the morning of February 25, 2022, and from that time until 6:00am on February 25, no hotel employee performed a welfare check on Decedent. (Id., ¶ 30.)

            At approximately 6:00am on February 25, Gamboa was instructed by Marriott headquarters to perform a welfare check on Decedent. (Compl. ¶ 31.) Gamboa knocked on the door, but there was no response. (Ibid.) Gamboa took no further action until the arrival of deputies from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. (Ibid.) The Los Angeles deputies discovered Decedent in her hotel room, after which she was pronounced dead. (Id., ¶ 32.)    

            On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses from Defendant Huntington Pacific Hotels, LLC as to Request for Production No. 26. Defendant filed its opposition on January 8, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on January 12, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b), 2033.290(b).) The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Zang Decl.)

DISCUSSION

RFP No. 26 requests the following: “The ‘System and Standard’ established by Marriott International, Inc., for franchise owners and operators which are referred to in paragraphs 8.1B, 8.3A, 10.2, 11.2 AI, and 15.1, of the franchise agreement between the Defendants in this case.” Defendant initially objected that the request calls for trade secret or other confidential information. Defendant’s supplemental response asserted the same objection and then indicated that Defendant would not comply with the request absent a court order. Defendant’s further supplemental response stated that it would provide its Brand Standard Indexes but that any further documents would not be produced absent a protective order.

The requested records on hotel policies are relevant because Plaintiff alleges negligence on the part of the hotel and is entitled to ascertain whether Defendant implemented and followed adequate protocols. Therefore, Plaintiff has established good cause for the production.

In opposition, Defendant first argues that the motion is procedurally defective because Plaintiff did not schedule an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) in accordance with the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Court. The standing order states that “parties should participate in an IDC before a motion to compel” but does not mandate it as a prerequisite to a motion. Furthermore, Plaintiff attempted multiple times to schedule an IDC, but Defendant did not reply. (Zang Decl. ¶¶ 14-15, Ex. C, E, F.) Therefore, the motion is procedurally proper, and the Court will proceed on the merits.

Defendant argues that the request is overbroad and encompasses documents not relevant to the subject action. Defendant never asserted this objection in any of its three responses, which focused on the trade secret issue. Defendant’s latest supplemental response only stated that a protective order would be necessary before production, not that the request was overbroad or irrelevant. As discussed above, Plaintiff has established good cause for the request. Defendant’s opposition does not explain how the request is overbroad or irrelevant. The request is already narrowly tailored to the System and Standard applicable to franchise owners and operators as referenced in specific provisions of the franchise agreement. Defendant also does not explain how its trade secrets would be exposed in the production. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has agreed to enter into a protective order, which offers adequate protection for any confidential information.  

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is GRANTED. Production shall be subject to a protective order.