Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV09215, Date: 2024-12-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09215    Hearing Date: December 26, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Maria De Los Angeles Perez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant, Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC (“Defendant”) to serve further verified responses without objection and produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Production of Documents, served by Plaintiff on July 10, 2024. Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos.: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 17, and 18. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $4,860.00.

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion as follows.  Within 60 days of this order, Defendant shall serve further responses to RFP Nos. 1-6; 17, and 18 with the scope limited to January 1, 2020-April 15, 2022 and (2) all responsive documents.

The Court DENIES the motion for further responses to RFP No. 13.

The COURT DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions.

Background

            Plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries when she tripped and fell when she was legally at Dodgers Stadium on April 15, 2022. (Complaint ¶ 15.) Plaintiff further alleges, that the hazardous, dangerous condition was created by Defendants and/or existed for a sufficient time prior to the incident for Defendants to have corrected, removed, and/or warned Plaintiff of the existence of said conditions, all of which Defendants negligently and carelessly failed to do. (Id.) On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed her complaint seeking to recover money damages from Defendant in a premises liability and negligence suit.          

Discussion

            Timeliness

            The motion is timely because the parties agreed to an extension. Here, Defendant served verified responses on August 27, 2024. Forty-five (45) days after service would be October 11, 2024. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on November 12, 2024. Nevertheless, the parties agreed to a November 22, 2024, extension. Thus, the motion is timely.

            Meet and Confer

            The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)

            Plaintiff’s counsel had a “meet and confer” telephone conference with defense counsel on September 11, 2024. (Robie Decl. ¶ 14; Kanarek Decl. ¶ 7.) Thus, the meet and confer requirement was satisfied.

            Request for Production

          Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 1-6; 13, 17, and 18.

The following are requested:

          Request for Production of Documents No. 1: All video footage of any and all trip and falls in YOUR possession occurring on DODGERS PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE ACTUAL STADIUM from April 15, 2015, to July 9, 2024.

          Request for Production of Documents No. 2: All DOCUMENTS wherein YOU were made aware of a trip and fall occurring on DODGERS PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE ACTUAL STADIUM from April 15, 2015 to July 9, 2024.

          Request for Production of Documents No. 3: All DOCUMENTS evidencing any investigation by YOU of a trip and fall occurring on DODGERS PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE ACTUAL STADIUM from April 15, 2015 to July 9, 2024.

          Request for Production of Documents No. 4: All communications (emails, memos, documents) created by YOU as a result of a trip and fall on DODGERS PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE ACTUAL STADIUM from April 15, 2015, to July 9, 2024.

          Request for Production of Documents No. 5: All depositions taken during the litigation of a lawsuit where the plaintiff alleged to have tripped and fallen on DODGERS PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE ACTUAL STADIUM from April 15, 2015 to July 9, 2024.

          Request for Production of Documents No. 6: All depositions of any of YOUR employees taken during the litigation of a lawsuit alleging a trip and fall on DODGERS PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE ACTUAL STADIUM from April 15, 2015, to July 9, 2024.

          Request for Production of Documents No. 13: All DOCUMENTS that relate to any attempt by YOU to find video footage of the SUBJECT INCIDENT.

          Request for Production of Documents No. 17: All DOCUMENTS that evidence any REPAIRS that occurred on DODGERS PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE ACTUAL STADIUM prior to the SUBJECT INCIDENT from April 15, 2015 to July 9, 2024.

          Request for Production of Documents No. 18: All DOCUMENTS that evidence any COMPLAINT made by anyone to YOU regarding the condition of the walkway, street or parking lot surfaces including the presence of any uplifts, holes, or other walkway defects on DODGERS PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE ACTUAL STADIUM from April 15, 2015, to July 9, 2024.

          Plaintiff argues that further response is warranted because the requests are limited in time (4/15/15 - 7/9/24), scope (trip and falls) and geography (outside concourses/parking lots). (Not. of Mot. at p. 8.) Further, Plaintiff argues that good cause exists for the requests because Plaintiff has the burden of proof to show actual or constructive notice. (Id. at p. 9.)

          In opposition, Defendant argues that the requests are burdensome, violate attorney client privilege, and there are third party privilege concerns. (Opp. at p. 2.) Specifically, Defendant argues that it would cost the Dodgers hundreds of hours of employee time to review the documents necessary to determine whether documents exist in their possession custody and control responsive to these requests. (Id.) In addition, documents responsive to those requests would include substantial amounts of personal third-party information protected by case law and the California Constitution. (Id.) Such private third-party information would be included in the documents sought in response to request Nos. 5 and 6, Finally, request nos. 2, 3, 4, 13, and 18 appear to invade the attorney client privilege and work product protections. (Id.) Additionally, sanctions are not warranted because the objections were substantially justified.

          In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s arguments are meritless because they are conclusory and not substantiated by evidence. (Reply at p.2.)

          Burdensomeness and Confidentiality Nos. 1-6; 17-18

          The Court concludes that the time frame Plaintiff requests between April 15, 2015, to July 9, 2024, is excessive since the alleged fall occurred on April 15, 2022. Plaintiff failed to show that good cause exists for her requests of approximately 10 years’ worth of documents and footage. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requests of substantially similar incidents. Thus, the Court further limits the scope to January 1, 2020 - April 15, 2022. Additionally, Defendant is able to redact any identifying information to prevent HIPPA violations. 

          The Court is also comfortable limiting the time frame as Defendant has already provided Plaintiff a spreadsheet detailing a wider range of incidents.  If there are any outside the time frame that appear particularly relevant, Plaintiff can within reason seek such documents specifically.

                    Work-Product and Confidentiality No. 13

          Plaintiff requests “All DOCUMENTS that relate to any attempt by YOU to find video footage of the SUBJECT INCIDENT.” Defendant objected as follows: “Objection. This request seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege and work product protections. Without waiving those objections, after a reasonable search and diligent inquiry, responding party is not in possession of any documents that are responsive to this request that are not protected by the above protections.” (Def.’s Res. to Sep. Stat. at p. 7.)  While objecting to preserve attorney-client privilege, Defendant stated unequivocally that there are no such documents. This is sufficient.

          Monetary Sanctions

          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 to compel a further response to request for admissions and interrogatories, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

          Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $4,860.00 against Defendant, Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC and their attorney of record, Jerome M. Jackson and Leigh Robie of the Long & Levit Law. Since the motion was granted in part and denied in part, sanctions would be unjust. Thus, the Court denies sanctions.