Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV44976, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

On December 9, 2021, Plaintiff Belynda Ann Scurlock Williams filed this action against Defendants Northwest Dealerco Holdings, LLC, David Delrahim, Martin Fox, and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, asserting causes of action for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability.

The Complaint does not specify how the defendants caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. It only alleges (among other things) that on December 28, 2019, the defendants negligently owned, operated, leased, managed, repaired, and/or maintained their premises, which resulted in a dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff’s injuries. (Complaint, Attachment to Complaint, Second Cause of Action for Premises Liability, p. 1.)

On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, changing defendant Northwest Dealerco Holdings, LLC’s name to its true name, “Golden State Enterprises, LLC.”

On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses of Defendant Golden State Enterprises, LLC (“Defendant”) to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two).

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff states that “[t]his case arises out of a trip and fall that occurred on December 28. 2019, between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. at a 76 gas station, located at 505 W Vernon Avenue, City of Los Angeles, CA 90037 (hereinafter ‘Gas Station’). Plaintiff was lawfully visiting the Gas Station to fill her car with gas. As she was walking around her vehicle, she encountered a longstanding hole in the ground. Unaware of the danger, Plaintiff’s right foot and ankle suddenly sank into the hole causing her to stumble and sustain serious injuries. At all relevant times herein, the Gas Station was owned, managed, maintained, and controlled by Defendant.” (Motion, p. 3:3-9.)

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve further verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”), Nos. 16.1 through 16.6, 16.9, and 16.10.

The instant motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be brought within 45 days of service of a verified response, supplemental verified response, or on a date to which the propounding and responding parties have agreed to in writing; otherwise, the propounding party waives the right to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)

Here, the Court finds the motion timely as it was made on October 25, 2023, within 45 days of Defendant serving its verified responses. (See Motion, declaration of Katherine M. Shrager (“Shrager Decl.”), ¶ 4 [testifying that Defendant served the responses to the FROGs on October 23, 2023]; Exhibit B – a copy of the FROGs.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the separate statement requirement. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2) [requiring motions to compel further responses to requests for interrogatories to be accompanied by a separate statement]; Separate Statement, filed October 24, 2023 [outlining the interrogatories at issue, Defendant’s responses, and Plaintiff’s reasons for moving to compel further responses].)

The instant motion must also “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).)

“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on October 24, 2023, the day after Defendant served the responses to the FROGs on October 23, 2023, she sent a meet and confer correspondence to Defendant outlining the deficiencies in the responses. (Shrager Decl., ¶ 5; Exhibit C.) Counsel further states that due to the impending trial, she only gave Defendant three (3) days, until October 27, 2023, to provide further verified responses without objections. (Shrager Decl., ¶ 5; Exhibit C, p. 1 [“Given the short timeframe, and impending trial date, we’ve already reserved Motion hearing dates for November 20 and 28. Please amend the responses by no later than October 27, 2023. Upon receipt, we will consider taking the Motion off calendar”].)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the meet and confer requirement. “[A]ttempting informal resolution means more than the mere attempt by the discovery proponent ‘to persuade the objector of the error of his ways’ [citation]; and that ‘a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing]counsel.... Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.’ [Citation.]” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) Here, Plaintiff did not wait until after October 27, 2023 (the deadline she gave Defendant to serve supplemental responses) to file this motion. Instead, she filed it on October 25, 2023, only two (2) days after the Defendant had served its verified responses. Therefore, Defendant did not have a reasonable opportunity to discuss the matter with Plaintiff before Plaintiff filed this motion.

Accordingly, the Court will CONTINUE the hearing and ask the parties to meet, confer, and attempt to resolve the issues raised in the instant motion.

Despite the insufficient meet and confer efforts, the Court notes the following that may guide the parties actions as they meet and confer:

· FROG No. 16.1: Do you contend that any PERSON, other than you or plaintiff, contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT or the injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff?

· FROG No. 16.2: Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the INCIDENT?

· FROG No. 16.3: Do you contend that the injuries or the extent of the injuries claimed by plaintiff as disclosed in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not caused by the INCIDENT?

· FROG No. 16.4: Do you contend that any of the services furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not due to the INCIDENT?

· FROG No. 16.5: Do you contend that any of the costs of services furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed as damages by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not necessary or unreasonable?

· FROG No. 16.6: Do you contend that any part of the loss of earnings or income claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case was unreasonable or was not caused by the INCIDENT?

(Separate Statement, pp. 2:3-11:28.) If Defendant answered any of the above questions in the affirmative, the FROGs had subparts that asked for elaboration.

Unknown at this time. Defendant lacks sufficient information and documentation at this time to make a contention. Responding party’s information is limited as discovery is ongoing. The responding party objects to this interrogatory as discovery of this nature is premature as the posture of the case is in the preliminary stages of litigation and a thorough investigation has not yet been completed. Additionally, this request is premature in that it solicits an opinion and/or expert discovery which is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et. al. Responding party has yet to depose plaintiff or plaintiff’s treating doctors or obtained the entirety of plaintiff’s medical records either via discovery or subpoena. Further, plaintiff’s medical and employment records have not been reviewed by Defendant’s consultants or experts. Responding party reserves the right to further investigate as to what may have caused or contributed to the occurrence the alleged incident and specifically reserves the right to supplement this response without prejudice to the right to introduce evidence at trial of any subsequently discovered facts. Discovery and investigation are continuing.

(Separate Statement, pp. 2:14-10:2.) Plaintiff argues that the above objections are meritless and there is no reasonable basis for Defendant to withhold its contentions because written discovery is closed, Plaintiff was deposed in March 2023, and Plaintiff’s medical records have long been subpoenaed and produced. (Motion, p. 7:14-20.) In its opposition, Defendant does not dispute those facts. Given Plaintiff’s undisputed contentions that discovery is closed and the information that Defendant would need to respond to FROGs Nos. 16.1 through 16.6 have been produced, the Court would be inclined, if the parties do not reach a resolution themselves and no other information than what the Court currently knows is before the Court, to grant the request to compel Defendant’s further responses.

Plaintiff Belynda Ann Scurlock Williams’s Motion to Compel Further Responses, Without Objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, is CONTINUED to December 1, 2023, the same date as the scheduled Informal Discovery Conference, Dept. 27, at 1:30 PM, Spring Street Courthouse. The parties are ordered to meet and confer concerning Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 16.1 through 16.6, 16.9, and 16.10 by November 22, 2023. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve, at least five (5) court days before the next hearing, a supplemental declaration updating the Court about the outcome of those meet and confer efforts.

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’s 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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court