Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV03076, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV03076    Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2020, Mariam Varosyan and Eliza Makichyan filed this action (20STCV03076), against defendants (1) Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, and (2) Evan William Paul Ramsey (collectively, “Defendants”), arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on August 4, 2019.

On May 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Williams Alfredo Alvarez-Molineros (“Williams”), Mayra Lorena Alvarez Moralez (“Mayra”), Jhosselin Mayerli Guajaca Alvarez (“Jhosselin”) and Maria Jose Guajaca Alvarez (“Maria”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit (20STCV19529) against the Defendants, arising from the same motor vehicle collision.

On April 1, 2021, the Court consolidated 20STCV03076 and 20STCV19529. The Court ordered that 20STCV03076 is the lead case.

On July 28, 2022, the lead case was dismissed with prejudice.

On September 20, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion for protective order.

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their opposition.

As of May 6, 2023, no reply to the opposition has been filed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.010, “[a]ny party may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:

(a)  Oral and written depositions.

(b)  Interrogatories to a party.

(c)  Inspections of documents, things, and places.

(d)  Physical and mental examinations.

(e)  Requests for admissions.

(f)   Simultaneous exchanges of expert trial witness information.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.010.)

However, “[t]he court shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method provided in Section 2019.010 if it determines either of the following:

(1)  The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

(2)  The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.030, subd. (a).)

“The court may make these determinations pursuant to a motion for a protective order by a party or other affected person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.030, subd. (b).)

III.      DISCUSSION

Defendants request the Court enter a protective order relieving them from having to respond to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One (four sets); Special Interrogatories, Set One (four sets); Requests for Admission, Set One (four sets); and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (four sets), propounded upon each defendant (32 sets in total). They argue that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are irrelevant, duplicative, unwarranted, and create an undue burden and expense for the Defendants.

Defendants also request sanctions of $1,815, against Plaintiffs and their attorneys of records, Jacoby & Meyers Attorneys, LLP, jointly and severally.

A motion for a protective order shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.030, subd. (b).) Section 2016.040 requires “[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion … [to] state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

Here, Defendants do not show they made a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the issues presented in their motion.

Defense counsel (Arto J. Nuutinen) apparently sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a meet and confer letter on September 19, 2022, demanding that defense counsel respond to the meet and confer by noon, the next day on September 20, 2022. (Motion, Nuutinen Decl., ¶ 10; Exhibit J, p. 2, the last paragraph [“Please indicate your agreement to withdraw the discovery at issue by noon tomorrow, September 20, 2022. If you decline to do so, we intend on filing a motion for protective order. Feel free to call me to discuss this issue further”].)

Plaintiffs’ counsel responded the next morning on September 20, 2022, and informed defense counsel that Plaintiffs’ counsel were in engaged in arbitration and will not have sufficient time to respond by the “one day deadline,” but “hope[d] to respond within the next week or so.” (Motion, Nuutinen Decl., ¶ 11; Exhibit K, p. 1.)

Instead of giving Plaintiffs’ counsel time to respond and engage in the meet and confer process, Defendants filed the instant motion on September 20, 2022. There is no indication that Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s email or at least tried to contact them via telephone before filing the motion.

Therefore, the lack of a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 is enough for the Court to deny the instant motion.

Even if the Court were to consider the motion on its merits, Plaintiffs inform the Court that the motion is moot. Defendants brought the motion seeking relief from having to respond to Plaintiffs’ voluminous form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents. They argue that the discovery requests are irrelevant, unwarranted, burdensome, and unnecessary because (among other things) Defendants already stipulated to liability, yet Plaintiffs’ discovery only targeted liability issues. (Motion, p. 6:22-27.) However, according to Plaintiffs’ counsel, on November 17, 2022, the parties met and conferred regarding the issues outlined in the motion, and Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw discovery relating to liability. (Motion, declaration of Bretil Beitmirza (“Beitmirza Decl.”), ¶ 9.) Therefore, at least according to Plaintiffs, the only remaining discovery requests are applicable directly towards Plaintiffs’ injuries. (Beitmirza Decl., ¶ 10.) Defendants have not filed a reply indicating otherwise.

For those reasons, the motion is denied, including the request for sanctions.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          The Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

Moving parties to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

        Dated this 10th day of May 2023