Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV01502, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01502, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01502 Hearing Date: February 11, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Holbrook v. Ralphs, Case no. 24SMCV01502

Hearing date February 11, 2025

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff Holbrook sues Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs for injuries sustained in a slip and fall at defendant's store. Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents, special and form interrogatories, set one on 5/31/24. Plaintiff moves to compel responses to RFPs, set one, nos. 1, 27-35 and 37 and further responses to form interrogatory 4.1 and special interrogatories 1 and 2, as well as $9,100 in sanctions.

When a party fails to timely respond to written discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for production of documents, propounding party can move for an order compelling a response without objections. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2023.290.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents, set one, 5/31/24; defendant responded 8/9/24. Decl. Weintraub para. 2; exhs. 1, 2. Defendant provided no documentation in response to request nos. 1, 27-35 and 37, which sought insurance policies, defendant’s employee handbook and defendant's safety policies. Decl. Weintraub paras. 3, 4.

Defendant argues plaintiff’s medical expenses, $30,355.16, are one-tenth defendant’s self-insured retention of $3,000,000, so there is no insurance or related documentation responsive to request no. 1. See Decl. Feffer.

Plaintiff alleges a TBI. Decl. Weintraub para. 13. Insurance policy limits are discoverable per statute. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2017.210. Per the court’s comments at the IDC on 11/4/24, there is no basis for defendant to refuse to provide this information. Decl. Weintraub para. 7.

Defendant argues request nos. 27-35 and 37 are overbroad and seek proprietary information, but it will produce compliant documentation per a protective order. The requests at issue seek defendant’s 2023 employee handbook and documents addressing “customer-facing” safety policies and procedures. Decl. Weintraub para. 7. Defendant’s customer-facing safety policies are relevant and discoverable. The objections of overbreadth are without merit; plaintiff agreed to limit the request to customer-facing policies and to only materials applicable to the store where the fall occurred. Decl. Weintraub para. 15. This is reasonable.

Defendant’s demand for a protective order is unavailing; Cal. Civ. Code §3426.1(d) states information “must derive independent economic value […] from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use” to qualify as a protected trade secret. Defendant offers no evidence, explanation or authority showing its customer safety policies derive independent economic value from being generally unknown. While not required, the court suggests a protective order be entered into as to the proprietary employee handbook and “customer facing” safety policies and procedures.

Defendant offers no justification warranting failure to respond to statutorily discoverable insurance policy limits and relevant customer safety policy documents. GRANTED. Code complaint verified responses within 15 days.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff propounded form and special interrogatories 5/31/24. Decl. Weintraub para. 2; exhs. 1-2. Defendant responded 8/9/24. Id.; exhs. 3-4. Plaintiff argues the responses to form interrogatory 4.1 and special interrogatories 1 and 2 were insufficient. The identified interrogatories sought information regarding defendant’s insurance policies. Decl. Weintraub para. 3; exh. 5.

Defendant produced information identifying its $3,000,000 SIR and stated it had “excess coverage.” Decl. Weintraub para. 4; exh. 5. At an IDC 11/4/24 the court noted defendant had no basis to not produce the requested insurance information. Decl. Weintraub para. 7.

Per Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300 a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories may be brought when, “[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” The insurance information is relevant and discoverable per the above reasoning.

Defendant argues it acted with substantial justification and no further production was warranted. The insurance policies are discoverable. Defendant agreed to produce further responses following the 11/4/24 IDC but failed to do so. Decl. Weintraub para. 8; exh. 6. GRANTED. Code compliant, verified responses within 15 days.

Sanctions

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(h). The information sought is relevant and discoverable. The court conducted an IDC and told the parties the court’s general view on such matters. Defendant did not respond, without justification. Sanctions are warranted.

Re the RFPs, Plaintiff seeks 8 hours at $650/hour; 5 hours preparing the motion, 2 hours preparing the reply and 1 hour for the hearing, totaling $5,200. Decl. Weintraub para. 17. Re the form and special interrogatories, plaintiff seeks 6 hours at $650/hour; 3 hours preparing the motion, 2 hours for the reply and 1 hour for the hearing.

The motions overlap; 14 hours total for two non-complex discovery motions is not reasonable. The court awards a total of 8 hours at $650/hour, a total of $5,200, payable within 30 days.