Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV01196, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 22BBCV01196    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Maryam Moghadam commenced this action against Defendants Grocery Outlet, Inc., Grocery Outlet Inc. dba Grocery Outlet Bargain Mall, Robert H Schwab TR Schawb family trust and John S Schwab TR Schwab Trust. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.

Plaintiff alleges that while shopping, she tripped and fell on an unknown dangerous condition that Defendants negligently failed to repair or provide warnings about. The condition was on property owned, operated, maintained, or controlled by Defendants. It is further alleged that Defendants had a duty to inspect, maintain, warn, and repair the property to ensure no dangerous condition existed that could harm customers, but they failed to fulfill this duty. Plaintiff believes that the dangerous condition was caused by the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Defendants’ agents or employees. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and had sufficient time to remedy it but failed to do so or to provide adequate warnings to pedestrians, including Plaintiff. This dangerous condition allegedly created a foreseeable risk of harm, which directly and proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries. As a result, Plaintiff claims to have suffered economic and non-economic damages, including medical expenses, loss of income, physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, anxiety, and emotional distress.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On November 14, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. An IDC request was filed on November 19, 2024, with the deadline for the Court to hold the IDC by December 9, 2024. Defendant provides as follows:

Discovery was served on Plaintiff’s counsel on June 26, 2024. After multiple extensions, responses were served on Sunday, September 30, 2024. A further response to Form Interrogatory 11.2 is required regarding Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim related to the incident. Despite being the claimant and self-employed at the time, Plaintiff claims to have no details about the claim. These records are directly relevant to the damages and cannot be independently obtained by Defendants through a subpoena without additional information that Plaintiff should know or have readily available.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES The propounding party may file motions to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes the responses received are (1) evasive, (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or overly general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) In response to a motion to compel further responses, the respondent bears the burden of justifying any objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

The request at issue is FORM INTERROGATORY 11.2, which states: In the past 10 years have you made a written claim or demand for workers’ compensation benefits? If so, for each claim or demand state:

(a) the date, time, and place of the INCIDENT giving rise to the claim;

(b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your employer at the time of the injury; and

(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the workers’ compensation insurer and the claim number;

(d) the period of time during which you received workers’ compensation benefits;

(e) a description of the injury;

(f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who provided services; and

(g) the case number at the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 11.2:

a. December 2020 this accident

b-g. The plaintiff does not have this information in his possession. However, the discovery is ongoing, and this responding party reserves the right to amend his response once such a document becomes available.

Defendants point out that the deficiency of Plaintiff’s responses arises from her failure to provide detailed information regarding a Workers’ Compensation claim related to the December 28, 2020, incident, despite acknowledging its existence in her response. Defendant states that Plaintiff, being both claimant and employer, is in a unique position to access or obtain the requested details with minimal effort, yet failed to do so in the nearly three months since receiving the discovery request. This information is essential for Defendants to evaluate Plaintiff's claims of lost income, pre-existing conditions, and liability theories. Defendants claim they cannot independently obtain the necessary details without Plaintiff’s cooperation, which prejudices their ability to issue subpoenas, prepare for trial, and access relevant records.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2016.040 and 2030.300(a) and (b)(1), a party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories if they find the initial responses deficient. Such a motion must include a meet-and-confer declaration as required by § 2016.040. In this case, Defendants state that Defense counsel made repeated attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff's counsel about the deficient responses but received no response, necessitating court intervention.

The Court finds that Defendants have sufficiently shown that Plaintiff’s responses are deficient, regarding the requested details of the Workers’ Compensation claim related to the December 28, 2020. The requested information is relevant to Defendants’ evaluation of Plaintiff’s claims, including lost income, pre-existing conditions, and liability theories. The Court finds that Defendants are entitled to further responses. Additionally, Defendants have shown that they attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding these issues, but Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to the meet and confer correspondence. (Ward Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5.)

Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to FROG No. 11.2.

MONETARY SANCTIONS

            If a party fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and seek a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to respond timely waives all objections, including those based on privilege and work product, unless the party has (1) subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance and (2) the failure to timely respond was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).)

            The Court also finds that Defendants are entitled to sanctions. Defendants’ counsel claims 4 hours for this motion at a rate of $175 per hour. The Court reduces the number of hours to 2 and awards the $60 filing fee, for a total of $410 to be awarded to Defendants.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

The Court also GRANTS Defendants’ request for sanctions in the amount of $410.

Defendants shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: January 10, 2025                                         ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court