Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV41463, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

On November 10, 2021, Plaintiff, Shalia Gibson, initiated this action against Defendant, Burlington Coat Factory of Texas, Inc.,[1] for injuries arising from a slip and fall on Defendant’s premises. Plaintiff alleges that on December 9, 2019, she slipped and fell over a small bench on the floor in the shoe department of Defendant’s store in Hawthorne, California.

On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set One. The discovery set consists of 52 interrogatories. Defense counsel found several of the interrogatories to be objectionable. On July 21, 2023, defense counsel attempted to meet and confer with plaintiff’s counsel regarding the interrogatories and requested that the improper interrogatories be withdrawn. Plaintiff’s counsel refused.

On July 28, 2023, Defendant served objection-only responses to the discovery. On the same date, Defendant filed this motion for a protective order against Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories. Defendant also requests sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record.

When propounded with Plaintiff’s discovery, Defendant had two options: move for a protective order or provide responses. “It is not necessary to seek a protective order to avoid answering interrogatories that are truly ‘burdensome and oppressive.’ The responding party can simply object on this ground.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), ¶ 8:1022.) Here, however, Defendant did both. Given that Defendant has provided responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to seek a further response. As such, the Court finds Defendant’s motion for a protective order is moot.[2]

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.

[1] Erroneously sued as Burlington Coat Factory, Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, and Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation (Doe 21).

[2] The parties argue the merits of the interrogatories for which Defendant seeks a protective order. A motion to compel further responses and its separate statement requirement are better vehicles to adjudicate this discovery dispute given that Defendant has provided responses. Should Plaintiff seek to compel further responses from Defendant, Plaintiff is directed to review the Eighth Amended Standing Order. A court in the Personal Injury Court System will not hear a motion to compel further unless and until the parties participate in an Informal Discovery Conference.