Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV18789, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18789    Hearing Date: December 18, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff Anne Caballero (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants CBRE Group, Inc., CBRE Inc., Otis Elevator Company (“Otis”), Century Plaza Towers, and Does 1 through 100 Corp. (collectively, “Defendants”) for 1) premises liability and 2) negligence stemming from injuries sustained on May 23, 2019, when Plaintiff was present in an elevator in Century Plaza Towers that fell uncontrollably. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff alleges she “has suffered and will continue to suffer intense pain in the future,” “incurred and will continue to incur medical, psychological, and other

related and unrelated out-of-pocket expenses which are not yet known to [her],” and “has suffered severe personal injury, and has suffered and will continue to suffer, for an indefinite period of time, through the rest of her life, a significant amount of pain, discomfort and emotional distress.” (Complaint ¶¶ 17-19.)

On November 15, 2022, Otis served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Chic Decl., ¶ 3.) On December 23, 2022, Plaintiff served written responses to both discovery requests. (Chic Decl., ¶ 4.)

On February 1, 2023, Otis’ counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel detailing perceived deficiencies in Plaintiff responses to both discovery motions. (Chic Decl., ¶ 7.)  Counsel for both sides subsequently met and conferred and Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to provide supplemental responses to the disputed discovery requests. (Chic Decl., ¶ 8.) On May 31, 2023, Plaintiff served supplemental responses. (Chic Decl., ¶ 9.) On June 13, 2023, Otis’ counsel sent a second letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting further supplemental responses. (Chic Decl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to provide them but as of the filing of this motion, has failed to provide any further supplemental responses. (Chic Decl., ¶ 12.)

On August 25, 2023, Otis filed the instant motions 1) to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and 2) to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

An informal discovery conference was scheduled for November 22, 2023. Counsel for Otis was present but neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel made an appearance. The Court ruled that counsel for Otis complied with the 8th Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts and has satisfied their IDC requirement.  

Legal Standard — Compel Further Responses

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.  

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)    

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)). 

Analysis

The Court finds that the motions are timely made. As a result of meet and confer exchanges in June and July, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to provide a second set of supplemental responses and the parties set August 25, 2023 as the date to file any necessary motions to compel further. (Chic Decl, Ex. H.) The Court also finds that Otis has satisfied its obligation to meet and confer.

Ruling on Unopposed Motions

          Here, as Plaintiff has not opposed either of Otis’ motions to compel further responses, and Otis has satisfied the procedural requirements for motions to compel further discovery responses, the Court GRANTS Otis’ motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, numbers 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, and 8.7. For the same reasons, the Court GRANTS Otis’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, numbers 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31, 41, and 46.

Regardless, all of the objections made by Plaintiff in its responses are overruled because they are unsupported by reasoned argument or authority and are boilerplate and unresponsive in violation of Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 2030.300 (a)(3).

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel further responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), 2030.300, subd. (d).) 

Otis’ request for sanctions is GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, for both motions, in amounts provided below. The Court reduces the amount of monetary sanctions requested in connection with each motion to reflect that no oppositions were filed and to reflect the similarity between the motions.

Sanctions are to be awarded as follows:

Special Interrogatories — $6570 for the filing fee of $60 and 21 hours preparing the motion (3 by Kristen Chic and 18 by her colleague Joanna Maxwell, each at $310 per hour).  

Form Interrogatories — $3430 for the filing fee of $60 and motion preparation time by Kristen Chic and by her colleague Joanna Maxwell. 

The total amount of sanctions of $10,000 to be paid by Plaintiff and her counsel of record, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Otis Elevator Company’s motions to compel further responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED.

As to Form Interrogatories, Set One, the motions are GRANTED as to Request Numbers 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, and 8.7.

As to Special Interrogatories, Set One, the motion is GRANTED as to Request Numbers 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31, 41, and 46.

Plaintiff is to provide further responses to the requests for which the motions were granted within 20 days of the issuance of this order.

Plaintiff Anne Cabellero and her counsel of record are to pay, jointly and severally, $10,000 to Defendant Otis Elevator Company within 20 days of the issuance 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.

    Dated this 18^th day of December 2023