Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV19551, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19551    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Von’s motion for a protective order is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART consistent with this ruling.

On 5/24/2021, Plaintiff Leslie Lawrence (Plaintiff) filed suit against the Vons Companies, Inc. (Vons) and Pacific West Management, LLC, alleging premises liability.

            Now, Vons seeks a protective order precluding the deposition of Vons District Manager, Jennifer Holden.

Discussion

            Vons argues that Plaintiff should be precluded from deposing Ms. Holden, given that she does not have any personal knowledge concerning the subject incident and is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the store. Moreover, Vons' management employees (David Vollmer and Michael Thomas) have already provided in excess of 13 hours of testimony regarding their personal knowledge of the incident as well as policies and procedures in place relating to the removal of snow and ice from the sidewalk on the day of the incident as well as policies and procedures regarding customer incidents in effect at the time of plaintiff's fall.

            More specifically: (1) Plaintiff has already deposed Michael Thomas, the store director at the subject Vons on the day of the incident in his capacity as an employee with some knowledge of the incident; (2) Plaintiff deposed Mr. Thomas in his capacity as the person most knowledgeable (PMK) on behalf of Vons on 57 topics (including those referenced in the notice of deposition as to Jennifer Holden; and (3) Plaintiff deposed retired Vons employee David Vollmer, the assistant store director at the subject Vons on the day of the incident who went to Plaintiff's assistance after learning of the incident and prepared the confidential incident report on behalf of Vons. Mr. Vollmer's testimony also focused on store operations and maintenance as well as policies and procedures in place at the time of plaintiff's fall. 

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to depose Ms. Holden because Mr. Thomas was unprepared as a PMQ witness, and did not produce any documents at the deposition. Moreover, as Mr. Thomas’s direct supervisor, Plaintiff argues that Ms. Holden is likely to have relevant, admissible evidence about:

-         What are Vons’s policies and procedures with respect to snow/ice removal and mitigation in her region?

-         What are Vons’s policies and procedures with respect to reporting claims to its carrier?

-         What are Vons’s policies and procedures with respect to parking lot maintenance?

-         Do any manuals exist as to site maintenance or responding to incidents?

-         Did the store manager’s response to the accident follow Vons’s own policies and procedures?

As part of her opposition, Plaintiff submitted transcripts from Mr. Thomas’ declaration to show that he was not informed he was serving as a PMK witness. Moreover, Plaintiff submitted transcripts to show he was unable to definitively answer basic questions about relevant policies and procedures for Southern California:

- Q: Does any division have written policies and procedures?

- A: Not to my knowledge. I don’t know.

- Q: Okay. Okay. And—but it’s your understanding Southern California—and its Vons’ position that Southern California doesn’t have written policies or procedures about snow or—

- A: To my knowledge.

- Q: Okay. And is the mammoth store in the Southern California division?

- A: Yes.

- Q: Okay.

(Plaintiff Exh. 4, 153:11 – 154:20.)

Any information that might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement falls within the definition of permissible discovery. (Lipton v Superior Court (1996) 48 CA4th 1599, 1611.) Here, Von’s policies and procedures for Southern California, particularly those concerning snow and ice removal, are relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. Ms. Holden is not an “apex” employee, and was Mr. Thomas’s district manager at the time. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to discover whether or not she possesses relevant knowledge about Von’s policies and procedures.

However, Plaintiff does not advance any argument to show that Ms. Holden would possess any relevant knowledge concerning the accident itself. Indeed, Ms. Holden’s declaration has made clear that she was not involved in the reporting or investigation of any customer incidents alleged to have occurred at the subject store and that any information regarding slip and fall incidents, the investigation and reporting thereof and/or the day-to-day management and supervision relating to the subject Vons would be the responsibility of the store director and/or assistant store director. As such, Plaintiff has not shown any basis from which to conclude that Ms. Holden is likely to have relevant testimony regarding the incident itself, slip-and-fall incidents at the store generally, or day to day maintenance and inspection of the subject store.

In sum, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to depose Ms. Holden about Von’s policies and procedures for the Southern California district. However, Plaintiff is not entitled to depose Ms. Holden as to:

(1)  "Issues related to the roofing at the Vons where the accident occurred and knowledge that it shed water which then re-froze on the ground-and whether Thomas and Vollmer ever informed Holden of this condition.”

(2)  "Issues related to reporting injuries to the supervisor as well as to Sedgwick, and whether they were followed correctly here.”

(3)  "Whether Holden ever observed any materials related to the accident, including reports, photographs, videos, etc."

(4)  "Whether Holden is aware of other accidents at the Vons store. "

Based on the foregoing, Von’s motion for a protective order is granted in part, denied in part, consistent with this ruling.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  February    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.