Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV17366 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff may conduct a site inspection of any areas of the store that are accessible to the public. Plaintiff may also look at the Gleason buttons as part of this inspection.

Plaintiff’s expert or expert assistant may conduct inspections, photographs and measurements of these public areas. Defendant shall remain a distance of 10 feet away. Defendant may photograph or videotape the inspection from the distance of 10 feet. Any video taken shall not record audio.

Defendant has thus far not provided information about whether the location of the current surveillance cameras in the store are the same as those at the time of the incident given that the camera system was replaced between January 2022 and March 2022. Defendant seems to contend that the cameras are now in different positions. However, it is not clear to the Court how Defendant can be sure that the cameras are in different positions yet does not know the prior locations of the cameras.

Defendant states that it has tried to contact the installer of the new cameras, HiTech, with no luck and that Defendant has been unable to obtain a diagram of the prior camera placement. Defendant suggests that Plaintiff propound discovery on this topic to get to the bottom of this issue.

Since Defendant is not willing to voluntarily resolve this factual matter, Plaintiff will need to use discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production, depositions of PMKs, and subpoenas for documents and testimony from third party HiTech.

Once the issue of the locations of the cameras at the time of the incident are fully resolved, Plaintiff’s expert may inspect all the cameras in the store. Plaintiff’s expert may document with video or pictures the view of the store from each camera.

Although these cameras are now possibly in different locations, the information that may be garnered from this inspection may assist Plaintiff’s expert in reaching conclusions about the views from the preexisting cameras. This information will be subject to a protective order agreed upon by the parties so that this information will only be used as necessary in the litigation of this matter.

Plaintiff’s expert may also take videos, pictures and measurements with respect to the previous locations of the cameras and the views they would have afforded of the store assuming that the current cameras are not in the same locations as the old ones. This information will be subject to a protective order agreed upon by the parties so that this information will only be used as necessary in the litigation of this matter.

Defendant’s expert and attorney may be present at the inspection subject to the ten foot distance rule noted above.

Plaintiff will bear the costs of the second inspection because Plaintiff did not meet and confer with Defendant, and subsequently file a motion to compel if necessary, prior to arriving at the store for the inspection.

However, Defendant’s objections to the inspection were not well founded and Defendants have unsuccessfully opposed the motion to compel.

Pursuant o Code of Civil Procedure 2031.320(b), the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,872.07 (six hours at $300 per hour plus $72.07 in filing fees) against Defendant. These sanctions are payable within 20 days after the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.