Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01291, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01291    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.   Allegations

Plaintiff Tanesha S. B. Wilson (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on June 12, 2021, a few minutes after 10:00 p.m., she and her roommate were returning from a restaurant, the Black Market Liquor Bar, to a parking lot on the Northeast corner of Carpenter Avenue and Ventura Boulevard, adjacent to and apparently controlled by the Sushi Stop restaurant at 11837 Ventura Boulevard.  Plaintiff alleges that she had been frustrated because she arrived too late to be served at the Black Market Liquor Bar and kicked one of the traffic cones on Carpenter Avenue that was located in or near the Sushi Stop parking lot.  Plaintiff alleges that Doe 6 (“Assailant”) is alleged to be an adult male and security guard/bounder for Defendants Kimura Enterprise, Inc. dba Susi Stop (“Kimura”), Sushistop Corporation (“Sushistop”), and Does 1-5.  Plaintiff alleges that Assailant shouted at Plaintiff that he was going to take her to jail.  Plaintiff alleges that she raised her arms to defend herself and Assailant shoved Plaintiff violently to the ground, face down, with excessive force, and planted his foot with great strength on the middle of her back so she could not get up.  Plaintiff alleges that she was pinned to the ground and LAFD paramedics arrived on scene to take her to the hospital. 

The complaint, filed June 8, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligent battery; (2) intentional battery; (3) negligent hiring and supervision; and (4) IIED. 

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint, naming Defendant Max Soto as Doe 1. 

On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice Defendant Sushistop Corporation only. 

B.    Motion on Calendar

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Kimura’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”). 

On March 18, 2024, Kimura filed an opposition to the motion. 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to compel Kimura’s further responses to SROG Nos. 5, 10, 12, and 20. 

            SROG No. 5 asks Kimura for the address and telephone number of Max Soto.  SROG No. 12 asks for the name, address, and telephone number of the person who was in the alternation with Plaintiff at the Sushi Stop restaurant parking lot on June 12, 2021.  Kimura objected that the home address and telephone numbers of its employees constitutes an invasion of privacy and would violate the rule against ex parte communications between Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’ employees.  Plaintiff acknowledges that ex parte communications are prohibited, but argues that objecting to the SROG is improper as there is no indication that Plaintiff would contact Soto upon disclosure of his address and phone number.  Plaintiff argues that countervailing interests supporting disclosure outweigh Soto’s privacy concerns because Soto, as Kimura’s store manager, was directed by Kimura to investigate Plaintiff’s conduct such that his contact information is discoverable.  (See CCP § 2017.010 [“Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”].)  Plaintiff argues that once she ascertains Soto’s address, she can serve him and propound form interrogatories (“FROG”) on him, including FROG No. 2.5 which requests information on a party’s address of residence.  The Court grants the motion as to SROG No. 5.  Similarly, the discovery of witness information is discoverable with respect to SROG No. 12.  The motion is granted as to SROG No. 12 as well. 

            SROG Nos. 10 and 20 ask if Kimura condones the actions of (10) Soto involving Plaintiff, and (20) the person who was in an altercation with Plaintiff, on June 12, 2021.  Kimura objected that the SROGs called for speculation.  Plaintiff argues that the SROGs do not call for speculation because Kimura is asked to respond to Kimura’s knowledge of whether it condoned such actions, and does not ask Kimura to speculate about another person or entity’s opinions. 

The motion is denied as to SROG No. 10.  The complaint alleges that Assailant was a security guard/bouncer for Defendants Kimura, Sushistop, and Does 1-5, but makes no further allegations about Doe 1 (later identified as Soto).  Thus, the complaint fails to allege what actions Doe 1/Soto undertook for Kimura to condone or not condone and the SROG requests (Mot., Ex. A) do not define what actions Soto undertook.  Plaintiff should redraft SROG No. 10 to specifically define what actions Soto undertook involving Plaintiff and re-propound it on Kimura.

However, the motion is granted as to SROG No. 20.  The only objection raised by Kimura is that the SROG calls for speculation.  The SROG is directed at Kimura and seeks information with Kimuara’s knowledge.  The objection is overruled.  The motion is granted as to SROG No. 20.

No sanctions were requested. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Tanesha S. B. Wilson’s motion to compel Defendant Kimura Enterprise, Inc. dba Susi Stop’s further responses is granted as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 5, 12, and 20, and denied as to No. 10.  Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of notice of this order.