LEGAL STANDARD 

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite its allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve its dispute.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843. “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119. 

A “defendant moving for summary judgment must show the plaintiff’s causes of action have¿no merit.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.¿(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849, emphasis added.) In other words, summary judgment is not to be granted simply because a case is “weak” or because a “weak” showing was made in opposition. (Hagen v. Hickenbottom¿(1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, 187-188, superseded by statute on another point as recognized in¿Rice v. Clark¿(2002) 28 Cal.4th 89, 96;¿Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc.¿(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 589, 722. [“to avoid summary judgment a showing need not be strong; it need only be sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.”].) 

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519. A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). The elements of negligence are (1) a legal duty owed to plaintiffs to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal. App. 4th 292, 318.) 

Defendant has two methods to shift the burden of proof. In addition to the standard method of presenting evidence that negates an essential element, the defendant may rely upon factually insufficient discovery responses by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action sued upon. (Union Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 590.)¿“Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) 

ANALYSIS 

The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)¿¿ 

In meeting its initial burden for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s negligence claim, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has no evidence that Robles was negligent with respect to the installation or its work at the Property. (UMF 14.) Defendant first introduces Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatory No. 7 (Def’s Exhibit K), asking Plaintiff to “state all facts upon which YOU base the contention that Propounding Party is liable for negligence as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.” Plaintiff’s response consists of only objections. Defendant then introduced Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production No. 7 (Def’s Exhibit L), asking Plaintiff to provide “Any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that Propounding Party is liable for negligence as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.” In response, Plaintiff directed Defendant to review Plaintiff’s entire document production. 

Plaintiff’s responses are not factually devoid. Objections are not treated the same as factually devoid interrogatories responses (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 892-93). When the plaintiffs in¿Union Bank v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 378¿stated “mere¿beliefs”¿in response to a question requesting¿all facts¿supporting an element of their claims, the logical inference was that after discovery they possessed no facts to support that element. (Id.) However, no such logical inference of an absence of facts can be drawn from an objection even though it was not a proper objection. (Id.)¿ For summary judgment purposes, an objection is not the equivalent of a factually devoid response, and therefore cannot be used to shift the burden. (Id.)¿Furthermore, Plaintiff’s response to the request for production did not state that he lacks any documents; instead, it directed Defendant to review Plaintiff's document production. Defendant also did not provide Plaintiff’s entire document production nor a summary thereof, leaving the Court without a basis to assess the types of documentary evidence in Plaintiff’s possession or the lack thereof in order to shift Defendant’s initial burden. Thus, Defendant failed to show that Plaintiff’s discovery responses are factually devoid and therefore failed to shift its initial burden on this basis. 

Defendant introduced evidence showing that in September 2019, Robles Glass employees, including Jorge Mora, who installed the blinds in question, participated in a training session with Gene’s Industry, Inc. to learn how to install blinds. (Deposition of Joel Robles, Exhibit C, Pages 62-65, Lines 5-6.) CLG Management, the property management company for Plaintiff’s residence, inspected the blinds after the installation and did not find any problems with the installation. (Deposition of Jack Woolums, Exhibit G, Pages 92-93, Lines 12-16; Exhibit D to CLG Management, LLC’s verified responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One propounded by Plaintiff - Exhibit I.) Defendant Robles Glass never received any complaints regarding the installation of the blinds at issue. (Deposition of Joel Robles, Exhibit C, Pages 138-139, Lines 19-17.) Furthermore, Plaintiff never reported any repair requests regarding the blinds in his unit. (Exhibit E to CLG Management, LLC’s verified responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One propounded by Plaintiff, Exhibit J.) This evidence demonstrates that Defendant’s technician had blind installation training, and the installation was inspected by the property management company without issue, and no complaints were made about the installation or the blinds. Defendant has therefore met its initial burden. However, the Court will note that Defendant introduced only circumstantial evidence of its lack of negligence. Defendant did not introduce any evidence or undisputed material facts regarding details of the installation itself. Although Defendant has met its initial burden, the evidence presented does not constitute a strong showing.