Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV03035, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03035    Hearing Date: November 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports (erroneously sued as Los Angeles International Airport) (“Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Milton Guinses (“Plaintiff”)

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is a slip and fall case. On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff Milton Guinses (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles International Airport, and Does 1 to 25, alleging causes of action for premises liability and general negligence. Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell on June 15, 2021, while at the LAX Arrivals terminal. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has suffered wage loss, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, and loss of earning capacity.

On April 18, 2023, the parties engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). The Court’s Minute Order as to the IDC states that the issues have been resolved and Plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to prepare and submit a Notice of Outcome.

On April 18, 2023, Defendants filed and served a Notice of Outcome as to the IDC which provides that “[b]oth [p]arties met with the Court and discussed outstanding discovery issues with Plaintiff’s responses to . . . Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).” (Notice of Outcome at 1:28-2:2.) Relevantly, the Notice of Outcome provides that “[t]he Parties will meet and confer within two (2) weeks of the [IDC] to address Plaintiff’s responses to . . . Requests for Production of Documents Nos. . . 43 and 44.” (Id. at 2:4-7.) The Notice of Outcome further indicates that “LAWA will have twenty (20) days from the meet and confer date to file Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to LAWA’s . . . Requests for Production of Documents.” (Id. at 2:8-10.)

The Instant Motion

On October 10, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified further responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Numbers 43 and 44 within 10 days (the “Motion”). Defendants also request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, LA Century Law, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,880.00, within 30 days of the hearing on the Motion.

The Motion is made on the grounds that despite Defendants’ attempts to obtain complete, code-compliant and straightforward responses, Plaintiff’s responses regarding his damages are deficient. Defendants contend that: (1) the Court should order Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Numbers 43 and 44; and (2) sanctions are warranted for the abuse of the discovery process.

On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed his opposition brief and asserts that: (1) there is no basis for the Motion because Plaintiff has produced all discoverable documents through the discovery process and his responses are code-compliant and proper; and (2) sanctions are not warranted. On November 13, 2023, Defendants filed their reply brief.

The Requests for Production of Documents at Issue

          Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Number 43 requests “ALL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR claim for wage loss.” (Defendants’ Separate Statement at 2:7-9.) Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Number 44 requests “ALL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR claim for loss of future earning capacity.” (Defendants’ Separate Statement at 4:24-25.)

II.          PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE

The Motion is procedurally compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345. Also, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been met pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040. (Mekha Decl., ¶¶ 6-14.)

The Court finds that the Motion is timely under Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310 as Plaintiff’s counsel granted Defendants’ counsel an extension to file the Motion to October 20, 2023. (Mekha Decl., Exhibit G.)

III.        LEGAL STANDARD

In California, discovery statutes “must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) “Under the discovery statutes, information is discoverable if it is unprivileged and is either relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to reveal admissible evidence.” (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1186.) “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.” (Ibid.) “When discovery requests are grossly overbroad on their face, and hence do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need, a reasonable inference can be drawn of an intent to harass and improperly burden.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

IV.         DISCUSSION

Issue No.1: The Good Cause Requirement

          On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection to the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a)(1)-(3).) Where a party seeks to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, a showing of good cause must be established before production may be compelled. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550.)

To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact. (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

          Declarations of Counsel

          Moreen K. Mekha (“Mekha”), who is Defendants’ counsel, submitted a declaration in support of the Motion. This case arises from an alleged slip and fall incident where Plaintiff claims that he sustained personal injuries including injuries to his left knee, right elbow, right shoulder, and spine. (Mekha Decl., ¶ 3.) On May 27, 2022, Defendants served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff but Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses or request an extension. (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff ultimately served responses on November 21, 2022, and Defendants’ counsel requested further responses, which Plaintiff failed to provide. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiff refused to provide further responses after meeting and conferring about Plaintiff’s deficient responses. (Id., ¶ 7.)

          Mekha declares that the parties attended an IDC on April 18, 2023, where the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 43 and 44.[1] (Id., ¶ 8 and Exhibit C.) On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, but failed to produce responsive documents to Requests for Production, Nos. 43 and 44. (Id., ¶ 9 and Exhibit D.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff merely produced screenshots of his bank account balance for each month from January 2020 to April 2023 with his supplemental responses, but failed to produce the actual bank statements showing Plaintiff’s earned income from his catering business. (Id., ¶ 10.) On June 22, 2023, Defendants counsel sent meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting Plaintiff’s bank statements, but Plaintiff failed to produce such documents. (Id., ¶ 11 and Exhibit E.)

          Counsel asserts that Plaintiff provided amended responses on June 29, 2023, but failed to produce any documents with the amended responses. (Id., ¶12 and Exhibit F.) Counsel’s last meet and confer to get the bank statements was on October 17, 2023. (Id., ¶ 13 and Exhibit G.) Plaintiff has not produced the bank statements requested in Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents Nos. 43 and 44, which has forced Defendants to incur time and expenses bringing the Motion. (Id., ¶ 14.)

          In contrast, Plaintiff’s counsel provided a declaration contending that Plaintiff has produced all responsive financial records, including bank statements.  Hawatmeh Declaration, ¶ 19.

Analysis

          The Court has been provided with two opposing positions regarding what has been produced: Defendants declare that all that has been provided is screenshots of bank balances, with no bank statements produced.  Plaintiff indicates that he produced all responsive documents, including bank statements.  (He offers to provide a copy of such documents to the Court.)  Without the produced documents before the Court, the Court cannot assess the level of compliance.  Accordingly, the Court will discuss next steps with the parties at the hearing.  But, the Court hereby provides fair warning:  one of the declarations of counsel before it is inaccurate – either bank statements were produced or were not.  The Court will not hesitate to impose significant sanctions, i.e., sanctions that must be reported to the State Bar, on counsel who is providing the Court with inaccurate information and thereby acting in bad faith and causing unnecessary delay and cost in this action.[2]

          The request for monetary discovery sanctions will also be addressed at the hearing. 

      Dated this 20th day of November 2023