Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV00609, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00609    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 04-10-25

Case # 23CHCV00609, Jimenez v. Food 4 Less of Southern California, Inc., et al.

Trial Date: 05-11-26

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Cynthia Ann Jimenez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Food 4 Less of California, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling defendant’s further responses to plaintiff’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission and $10,092.00 in sanctions.

RULING: The parties are ordered to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference, and to file a joint status report by a date to be set by the court.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Cynthia Ann Jimenez (Plaintiff) filed this personal injury action against defendants Food 4 Less of Southern California, Inc. (Defendant), The Kroger Co., and Nancy Gragg on March 2, 2023.  Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was pushing a shopping cart that was missing a wheel while shopping at defendants’ store in Santa Clarita.  The shopping cart suddenly and unexpectedly tipped over and struck Plaintiff’s body.  As a result Plaintiff suffered extensive physical injuries and emotional distress.  The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and premises liability.

On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff served her first sets of form interrogatories (FROGs), special interrogatories (SROGs), requests for admissions (RFAs), and requests for production (RFPs) on Defendant.  (Declaration of Robert L. Booker II, Esq., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  Defendant served responses on January 15, 2025.  (Booker Dec., ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff sent Defendant two meet and confer letters requesting further responses and Plaintiff’s intent to file motions to compel further if further responses were not served.  (Booker Dec., ¶¶ 4-5.)

On January 27, 2025, defense counsel emailed plaintiff’s counsel stating responses would be served by the end of the day.  (Booker Dec., ¶ 6.)  At 8:17 pm that night, plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel state responses had not been sent.  (Booker Dec., ¶ 7.)  On January 28, 2025, defense counsel sent unverified, supplemental responses that restated the original nonresponsive language.  (Booker Dec., ¶ 8.)  On February 8, 2025, Plaintiff emailed defense counsel advising that she would be moving forward with her motions to compel.  (Booker Dec., ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff filed her motion to compel further responses to her FROGs 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, and 17.1; SROGs 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 30, 34, 59, and 61; RFAs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33; and RFPs on March 4, 2025.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses are evasive and that Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff has the burden to prove its case before Defendant must close information lacks merit.  Defendant’s responses that it has not had the opportunity to investigate or conduct discovery of plaintiff’s injuries and damages are directly adverse to Defendant’s legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to obtain the information from its employees and agents.  This information is within Defendant’s control and is relevant to leading to admissible evidence.  For example, Defendant’s responses regarding the incident report and policies and procedures being work product or privileged lack merit because simply stating a privilege without more does not justify withholding relevant information.  Defendant’s failure to comply with its legal obligations is grounds for sanctions.

Defendant filed an opposition on March 25, 2025.  Defendant asserts that Plaintiff fails to state a basis for any further responses.  Additionally, Defendant has provided full and complete responses with the information known or readily available at the time the responses were served.  The court should not award sanctions because Plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution.

Plaintiff filed a reply noting that Defendant does not address Plaintiff’s arguments with case law or other legal authority.  Defendant’s objections based on work-product and attorney-client privilege are evasive and are merely an attempt to avoid producing relevant discovery.

ANALYSIS and MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for admission must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve issues outside court.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).)  In Department 43, “meet and confer” means in person or via phone, not by letter or email.  (Department F43 Courtroom Information, at p. 2.) 

The court has reviewed the moving papers and finds that the parties have not met and conferred according to the court’s Department F43 Order. 

Therefore, the court orders the parties to meet and confer in person, by phone, or by video conference and to file a joint statement.  The parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues by a date to be set by the court.  The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by Plaintiff’s arguments, then Defendant’s arguments.  Any objections as to documents based on attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine must be accompanied by a privilege log.  (See Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1126.)

CONCLUSION ORDER

1.  The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference.

2.  The parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described above.  The format should be as follows: The parties should recite the specific discovery request(s) at issue, followed by the moving party’s statement of why it should be compelled, followed by the opposing party’s statement of why it should not be compelled.  To the extent that an argument is repeated for a subsequent request, the party shall simply refer to the section where the argument was previously made.  Any objections as to documents based on attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine must be accompanied by a privilege log.

3. The deadline for the status report will be set at the hearing on this motion.

Plaintiff to give notice.