Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV31189, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31189    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 

Hearing Date: 12/6/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV31189 MARY-CARMEN GALARZA vs SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC

Moving Party: Plaintiff Mary-Carmen Galarza 

Responding Party: Defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc. dba Superior Grocers

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

Ruling: GRANTED in part

MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS 

Hearing Date: 12/6/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV31189 MARY-CARMEN GALARZA vs SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC

Moving Party: Plaintiff Mary-Carmen Galarza 

Responding Party: Defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc. dba Superior Grocers

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

Ruling: DENIED

TENTATIVE 

Background

On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Mary-Carmen Galarza (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc. dba Superior Grocers (“Defendant”) for premises liability and negligence, alleging that on July 4, 2021, she slipped and fell on an oily substance at a Superior Grocery store. 

On April 8, 2024, Plaintiff propounded Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set Three. (Sandoval Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. C.) On June 10, 2024, Defendant served a response. (Id., Exh. E.) The parties agreed that motions to compel would be tolled for two weeks after Defendant produced documents. Plaintiff asserts nothing has been produced. (Id. ¶ 14, Exh. G.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, number 14. Plaintiff also moves to compel documents that were demanded in a deposition notice; the deposition was conducted on March 20, 2024. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes and Plaintiff replies. 

Meet and Confer

There have been multiple informal discovery conferences (“IDC”) related to the issue of past civil complaints for slip and falls at the subject store. On May 3, 2024 and August 1, 2024, the Court held IDCs and deemed the issues resolved. However, Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to follow through with its representation that it would supplement its response. (Sandoval Decl. ¶ 13.)

Analysis

I. Compel Further Response to Special Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that “on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:¿ 

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.¿ 

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.¿ 

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”¿ 

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b)(1).) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)¿¿ 

“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 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(d).)¿¿¿

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, number 14. 

Special Interrogatory number 14 asks: “IDENTIFY (the term “IDENTIFY” shall mean to state the full case name, date filed, and case number) all COMPLAINTS (the term “COMPLAINT” shall mean all civil actions filed in any courthouse) against YOU (the term “YOU” shall mean Defendant Super Center Concepts Inc., or any of its fictitious business names such as but not limited to Superior Grocers) for the SUBJECT STORE (the term “SUBJECT STORE” shall refer to Superior Store #101 located at 10211 S. Avalon Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90003) for the time period of July 4, 2016 through July 3, 2023 pertaining to any slip or falls.”

Defendant objected that this interrogatory is overly broad, violates attorney client privilege, work product, is not relevant, and violates a privacy right. However, Defendant also agreed to supplement the response as outlined in the May 20, 2024 IDC.^[1]

In opposition, Defendant concedes that it agreed to supplement this response and provide the information on civil lawsuits relating to slip and fall incidents at the subject store for the past five years, but has been delayed due to “changes in Defendant’s counsel, the workload of Defendant’s counsel and of Defendant’s representatives, the passing of Defendant’s representative who was the Person Most Knowledgeable in this matter, the broadness and ambiguity of the initial request, and in the need for analysis of filed lawsuits to determine which are responsive.” (Opp., 2.) Defendant asserts it can provide the responses before the hearing for this motion.

Defendant’s counsel asserts he substituted into this case on July 29, 2024. (Lara Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant also asserts that its claims manager, Ignacio Nunez, passed away, which further delayed production. (Id. ¶ 4.)

In opposition, Defendant does not appear to object to the production, and therefore fails to show that the objections based on attorney client privilege, work product, and privacy, have merit.

However, the Court finds that complaints after the incident do not appear relevant. Here, Plaintiff alleges the incident occurred on July 4, 2021. The Court finds that a five-year period before the incident would be reasonable. Therefore, any Complaints should be limited to incidents that occurred five years before July 4, 2021. 

Given the slight modification of the interrogatory, the delays caused by Mr. Nunez’s death, and Defendant’s representation that responses are forthcoming, the Court declines to award sanctions.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three. Defendant shall provide further responses in accordance with the findings in this order within 10 days.

II. Compel Production from Deposition Notice

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480,  

“(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. 

(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” 

“If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(i).)  

“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 an answer or production, 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. § 2025.480(j).)  

As an initial matter, the Notice of Motion states this motion is brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a) and 2025.480(b). The memorandum in support relies primarily on section 2025.450 which applies when a deponent fails to appear or proceed with a deposition. Here, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s person most knowledgeable, Ignacio Nunez, was deposed on March 20, 2024, but that he failed to provide document demand number 1. Therefore, the Court finds that section 2025.480 is more appropriate since that section applies when the deponent appears but fails to answer a question or produce any document in the demand.

Number 1 requests: All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any slip and fall incidents at 10211 S. Avalon Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90003 for the time period of July 4, 2016 through July 4, 2023.

In opposition, Defendant again asserts that it will provide the relevant documents.

However, the deposition transcript was certified March 26, 2024. (See Pl. Exh. B.) Therefore, Plaintiff had until May 25, 2024 to file this motion (60 days after March 26, 2024, pursuant to section 2025.480(b)). Because the motion was not timely filed, it is denied. (See Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 136 [the 60-day deadline is mandatory].) 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿ 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.