Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-1228929, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Before the court are two discovery motions:

I.  Motion 1

The motion by plaintiff Josefine Raeline Diaz (“plaintiff”) to compel further responses from defendant Zeb’s World Famous Boathouse, Inc. dba The Goat Hill Tavern (“defendant”) to form interrogatories (“FROGS”) Set One is GRANTED.

FROG 3.7

Defendant answered this FROG without any objections stating it has complied with all licensure requirements but failing to answer each of the subparts.  The newly asserted objections in the opposition to the motion were previously waived by failing to raise them in the verified response. [Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 785 -Objections must be timely made; the court will not consider belated or additional objections; Fuss v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 807, 817 – “An objection to an interrogatory must be interposed within the statutory time for response, and absent a showing of good cause for relief from default, cannot be considered if made thereafter.”]

Because each answer in response to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits (CCP §2030.220(a)), a further response is warranted. The motion is granted as to FROG 3.7.

FROG 12.2

The identity of witnesses who defense counsel has interviewed is not automatically entitled to absolute or qualified work product protection. To obtain such protection, defendant must persuade the trial court that disclosure of the identity of witnesses would reveal counsel’s tactics, impressions or evaluation of the case or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of counsel’s industry or efforts. (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 486) Defendant has not done made this showing.  (See City of San Diego v. Superior Court (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 457, 466).

The motion is granted as to FROG 12.2.

FROGS 12.4 and 12.6

Defendant has not provided facts establishing that the attorney-client or attorney work product doctrine applies and has not responded to each of the subparts. (See discussion re: FROG 12.2 and CCP §2030.220(a)).

The motion is granted as to FROGS 12.4 and 12.6.

FROG 15.1

The information sought by this FROG is relevant as defendant asserted 25 affirmative defenses in its Answer. Plaintiff is entitled to discover the factual basis and supporting evidence for those defenses. Moreover, Plaintiff has demonstrated that defendants’ objections are too general warranting a further response. (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)).

The motion is granted as to FROG 15.1.

II.  Motion 2

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from defendant to Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPS”) Set One is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

The motion is DENIED as to RFPS Nos. 2, 13, 18, 35, 38, and 39. Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for further responses to these RFPS. (CCP §2031.310(b)(1)).

The court also SUSTAINS defendant’s objections to the term “SUBJECT DANGEROUS CONDITION” used in RFPS Nos.  35, 39 and 53.

With the limited language specified, the Motion is GRANTED as to RFPS Nos. 12, 34, 46, and 53 .

RFP No. 12

Defendant’s response does not comply with CCP §2031.220. Defendant identified and produced two documents, an incident report and a surveillance video.  If there are no other responsive documents, then defendant can say so under oath. 

RFP No. 34:

Defendant’s contention that this request could encompass anything including plumbing, changing a lightbulb, fixing a chair, etc. has merit. However, plaintiff is entitled to documents showing any repairs to the post and the area where she was injured.

The motion is granted limited to documents regarding repairs to the property including to the wooden and/or metal post (and to the fan attached to the end of it) that hit plaintiff in the head and to the area around the post (i.e. to any area to which the post was attached or which could affect the post) for the time period specified in the RFP.

RFP No. 46

The motion is granted based on defendant’s representation that it is willing to provide a supplemental response.

RFP No. 53

As these photographs are clearly relevant, the motion is granted limited to all photographs in defendant’s possession of the post that hit the plaintiff taken between two years before the incident and the present.

III.  Sanctions

The court declines to award sanctions as the overall ruling is a split decision and a number of objections include allegations of attorney-client privilege and work product protection for which the defendant had substantial justification (and which can often be difficult to informally resolve).

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.