Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00297, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00297    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Anthony Bouyer (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Kinyan Properties LLC (“Defendant”) for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code, § 51 et seq.).  Defendant is alleged to be the owner of property located at 11055 Ventura Blvd., Studio City, CA 91604, where the Whata Peach restaurant is located.

Plaintiff alleges that he went to the restaurant on April 25, 2022 as a customer and purchased items sold at the business.  He alleges he also went to the restaurant as an advocate for the civil rights of disabled persons to verify whether Defendant complied with the ADA and the UCRA.  Plaintiff alleges that he is substantially limited in walking, standing, moving about, sitting, and driving, and that he requires the use of leg braces for mobility stability, a walker or wheelchair for mobility, and hand control devices to drive his motor vehicle.  He alleges that the parking spaces designated for the business lacked any designated parking spaces available for persons with disabilities. 

B.     Motions on Calendar

On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed 4 motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”); (2) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”); (3) Requests for Production of Documents (“RPD”); and (4) Requests for Admission (“RFA”).

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to: (1) FROG Nos. 4.1-4.2, 12.1-12.7, 14.1-14.2, 15.1, and 17.1: (2) SROG Nos. 1-8 and 10-15; (3) RPD Nos. 3-6, 8-11, 13-16, and 19-21; and (4) RFA Nos. 10-12, 14-16, and 18-19. 

In total, Plaintiff has propounded approximately 73 discovery requests (about 17 FROG requests, 15 SROGs, 21 RPDs, and 20 RFAs).  This puts a burden on Defendant that is out of proportion to the amount at issue and the complexity of the case. Although the matter is in an unlimited department at the Superior Court, it is unlikely that the amount at issue will exceed the Limited Jurisdiction of the Superior Court.  Therefore, based on the Court’s inherent power to control the proceedings before it, the Court limits discovery for both parties to the limits in CCP §§ 94 and 95 and orders Plaintiff to limit its discovery requests to 35 items. Plaintiff should re-propound these 35 items, and if the results are still unsatisfactory, it may refile an appropriate motion.  The Court will comment that at least some of Plaintiff’s points are well taken and that Defendants should consider revising their answers to be more directly substantive if they are identified as the important requests from Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Bouyer’s motion to compel Defendant Kinyan Properties LLC’s further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission are denied.  As stated in the Court’s written order, Plaintiff shall be limited to 35 total discovery requests pursuant to CCP §§ 94 and 95 and shall propound this limited number of discovery requests on Defendant.  If the results of this revised discovery still unsatisfactory, it may refile an appropriate motion.  

No sanctions shall be awarded on these four motions.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.