Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 22-01239024, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Grijalva    v.   Vance

Motion for Protective Order

Tentative Ruling:  Defendants Jeffrey S. Vance and Denise L. Vance’s Motion for Protective Order is MOOT and/or DENIED and the Court DENIES both parties request for sanctions.

Moving Party is to give notice.

Defendants Jeffrey S. Vance and Denise L. Vance (collectively “Defendants” or “VANCE”) seek a protective order relieving them of their obligations to respond to Plaintiff Juan Sanchez Grijalva’s (“Plaintiff”) first set of Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (“Discovery”) until after they receive Plaintiff’s substantive responses to Defendants’ written discovery. In the alternative, they seek a protective order stating they do not have to answer the Discovery until Plaintiff provides Defendants with specific details of the alleged incident and specific information as to any connection to Defendants’ property.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090 states:

(a) When interrogatories have been propounded, the responding party, and any other party or affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:

(1) That the set of interrogatories, or particular interrogatories in the set, need not be answered.

...

(3) That the time specified in Section 2030.260 to respond to the set of interrogatories, or to particular interrogatories in the set, be extended.

(4) That the response be made only on specified terms and conditions...”

Section 2031.060 similarly allows a responding to seek a protective order in response to a request for production of documents.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(a) and (b).)

Defendants contend a protective order is necessary to protect them “unwarranted annoyance, oppression, and the undue burden and expense of answering Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests which will be impossible for Defendants to do without specific information from Plaintiff regarding the subject incident.” (See Motion, pp. 7 and 8.) Defendants contend the allegations of the Complaint are so vague they have no understanding as to who Plaintiff is and why he would have been at their property on the date alleged. (See Schmitt Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. E.)

In Opposition, Plaintiff contends the Motion is moot since Plaintiff served verified discovery responses to Defendants’ discovery requests on May 10, 2022 and June 15, 2022 and since Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 25, 2022 (“FAC”). The FAC alleges that on October 10, 2021, Defendants hired Defendant Thompson and Plaintiff as day laborers to repair the roof at the property owned by Defendants; that Defendants did not provide adequate warning/training/equipment or safety tools to Plaintiff; and that Plaintiff fell off the roof and was injured at Defendants’ property. (See FAC.)

In Reply, Defendants contend that despite serving verified discovery responses to their discovery, the responses by Plaintiff still does not support any allegations alleged by him. Specifically, Defendants present evidence that Plaintiff’s document production includes medical records stating Plaintiff was injured in a pedestrian versus motor vehicle accident when he was struck and dragged by a vehicle at the intersection of South Pacific and West Myrtle, not at Defendants’ residence as alleged. (See Schmitt Decl., ¶¶ 6 and 7, Exh. B.) Defendants also present evidence that Plaintiff’s discovery responses and document production do not include any pictures, videos, documents or any other information that would implicate that Defendants’ property is where Plaintiff was injured. (Id.) Defendants present evidence that they do not know Plaintiff, were present at their residence on October 2, 2021, the date of the purported accident, and they have no knowledge of anybody falling or being injured at their property on that day. (Id., ¶ 2.)

Here, although the Complaint does appear vague as to Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendants VANCE, the FAC filed on July 25, 2022 includes additional allegations that Defendants VANCE hired Defendant Thompson and Plaintiff as day laborers to repair the roof at their property; that Defendants did not provide adequate warning/training/equipment or safety tools to Plaintiff; and that Plaintiff fell off the roof and was injured at Defendants’ property. (See FAC.) Plaintiff has also served verified discovery responses to Defendants’ discovery as requested by Defendants in their Motion.

Despite the above, Defendants contend they should still not be required to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery because Plaintiff’s discovery responses and document production do not support the allegation in the FAC that Plaintiff was injured at their property. Rather, the medical records produced by Plaintiff reveal that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident, not at Defendants’ residence.

The Court finds the Motion is MOOT since the protective order sought by Defendants was to allow them not to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery “until after receipt of Plaintiff’s substantive responses to Defendants’ written discovery” or alternatively to allow them not to respond to the discover “until Plaintiff provides Defendants with specific details of the alleged incident and specific information as to any connection to Defendants’ property because the allegations in the Complaint are so vague Defendants are unable to determine if this alleged incident happened on their property which makes it impossible to respond Plaintiff’s Discovery at this time.” (See Notice of Motion.)

Plaintiff has filed a complaint against Defendants and made their allegations against them. There is no requirement that a plaintiff “prove” or substantiate the allegations made against a defendant prior to serving discovery on a defendant or any law that states that a defendant does not need to respond to discovery until plaintiff proves the allegations made against him. The proper course of relief if the claims against Defendants have no basis is to seek summary judgment based on the evidence presented.

Sanctions:  Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Sasha Tymkowicz, Esq. of the LAW OFFICES OF SASHA TYMKOWICZ, in the amount of $1,320.00 on the grounds the Discovery is oppressive and on the grounds they failed to provide them with the requested information so they can answer the Discovery and forced Defendants to file this Motion. In Opposition, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $1,320.00 for filing a Motion without good cause and without establishing unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense exists for a protective order.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090(d) states: “The 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 for a protective order under this section, 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.”

The Court DENIES both requests for sanctions.