Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV36175, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36175    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          At issue before the Court is Plaintiff Sandra Martinez Basurto’s motion to compel Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation dba El Super’s further responses to Requests for Production (Set One). 

Plaintiff requests all documents setting forth all policies, procedures, and guidelines for inspection of the location where she fell, as well as all guidelines for cleaning, inspecting, and maintaining the area.  (RPD Nos. 1-4.)  Plaintiff also requests all “sweep sheets” (RPD No. 5), all written or recorded statements from any party, witnesses or employees (RPD Nos. 12-14), a copy of any report made as a result of the incident (RPD No. 15), and a copy of the blank incident/accident report “in effect” at the time of the incident (RPD No. 16.) 

Plaintiff additionally requests a copy of all complaints filed against Defendant concerning slip and fall accidents from March 2015 to the present (RPD No. 18), all documents that support its contentions regarding liability, causation, and Plaintiff’s injuries (RPD Nos. 19-20, 32), all documents that reflect when the location of the Incident was supposed to be inspected, maintained, or cleaned (RPD Nos. 23-25), and all documents concerning “ISO” claims (RPD No. 35).

Defendant has submitted sufficient evidence showing that any incident reports, employee witness statements, and blank incident reports are not discoverable based on the attorney client privilege and the attorney work-product protection.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion as to RPD Nos. 12-16 is DENIED. 

          Defendant also argues that an “ISO claim” is privileged is because it is a tool used by insurance companies to investigate a claimant’s claim history which is then forwarded to defense counsel in preparation for the case.  Defendant contends that this investigation material is work product.  The Court agrees.  Plaintiff’s motion as to RPD No. 35 is DENIED. 

          Defendant also states that further responses have been served for RPD Nos. 5-11, 12-15, 19-20, and 32, and unredacted sweep policies and procedures responsive to RPD Nos. 1-4 and 23-25 have been produced, thereby mooting the remainder of Plaintiff’s motion. 

          A review of Defendant’s further responses shows that some of them are not Code-compliant, particularly because they do not “specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.”  (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.230.)  Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for further responses is GRANTED as to RPD Nos. 5-11. 

          Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed in the reduced amount of $810, consisting of 2 hours at counsel’s hourly rate of $250 and a $60 filing fee. 

          Defendant is ordered to serve verified further responses and pay sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving party 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 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.