Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV21478, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV21478, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21478 Hearing Date: October 8, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Hearing Date: 10/8/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV21478 SAUL ZAVALA, et al. vs SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Saul and Petra Zavala

Responding Party: Defendant Kone Inc.

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS DENIED

Background

On July 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Saul and Petra Zavala filed the present action, alleging that Plaintiff Saul Zavala (“Plaintiff”) fell and was injured while riding a malfunctioning escalator at the airport. Saul Zavala alleges general negligence and product liability against Defendants Schindler Elevator Corporation and KONE Inc. Petra Zavala, Plaintiff’s wife, claims loss of consortium and emotional distress as a result of Plaintiff’s injuries. On May 8, Defendant KONE served 63 special interrogatories on Plaintiff and 74 special interrogatories on Petra Zavala. The interrogatories at issue are contention interrogatories, seeking facts, witnesses, and documents in support of various allegations made in the complaint. Plaintiffs argue that the number of interrogatories exceeds the 35-interrogatory limit and are unwarranted. Plaintiffs now move the Court for protective orders, requesting that they either not be required to answer the interrogatories or be granted a six-month extension to respond.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.040 provides:

(a) Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order under Section 2030.090, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as described in Section 2030.050 may propound a greater number of specially prepared interrogatories to another party if this greater number is warranted because of any of the following:

(1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

(2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition.

(3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.

(b) If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.

Contention interrogatories are explicitly permitted under Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010(b) where an interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Furthermore, the purpose of pretrial discovery is to obtain all of the facts relative to a claim or defense. Deyo v. Kilbourne, 84 Cal. App. 3d 777, 782 (1978); Burke v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 2d 276, 281-82 (1969) (discovery serves the function of testing the pleadings, enabling a party to determine the opponent's actual contentions and the facts relied upon to support them). Any party may obtain discovery relating to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2017.010.

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for general negligence and product liability against Defendant KONE, Inc. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that while riding an escalator at Los Angeles International Airport, the escalator was moving at such an excessive speed that it began shaking, causing Plaintiff to lose his balance. As a result, Plaintiff fell down the escalator and sustained serious bodily injuries. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant KONE was contractually obligated to provide full preventative maintenance and repair services for the escalator, beginning in early 2020, prior to the incident, and continuing until around September 2023. Plaintiff contends in the complaint that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies -- the harm he suffered would not have occurred unless someone was negligent. He further alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that the escalator posed an unreasonable risk of harm and failed to warn or repair it, ultimately leading to his injuries.

Plaintiff Petra Zavala alleges that as a result of her husband's injuries, she has been, and continues to be, deprived of her spouse’s companionship, affection, love, sexual relations, conjugal fellowship, and physical assistance in maintaining the family home. She also expects to continue experiencing this deprivation in the future. This loss has caused, and is expected to continue causing, Plaintiff Petra Zavala to suffer from depression, emotional distress, and a loss of earning capacity, both past, present, and future.

The discovery sought by Defendant is permissible under California law because it serves the function of testing the pleadings, enabling a party to determine the opponent's actual contentions and the facts relied upon to support those contentions. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 777, 782.) The special interrogatories at issue specifically address the allegations Plaintiffs made in the complaint and seek facts, witnesses, and documents that support these claims.

For instance, Special Interrogatory No. 45 asks, "Please state all facts that support YOUR contention that YOU were acting in a reasonable manner and with due care when using the SUBJECT ESCALATOR, as alleged in YOUR FAC." This inquiry directly relates to Plaintiff’s assertion in the complaint regarding his use of the escalator and seeks the facts supporting this contention. Similarly, Special Interrogatory No. 54 requests, "Please state all facts that support YOUR contention that KONE knew or should have known that the SUBJECT ESCALATOR created an unreasonable risk of harm, as alleged in YOUR FAC." This question seeks evidence supporting the claim that Defendant had prior knowledge of the escalator's dangerous condition. These interrogatories, like others propounded by Defendant, are directly tied to the specific allegations in the complaint and do not exceed the scope of permissible discovery.

Likewise, the interrogatories directed toward Petra Zavala are also based on the allegations in the complaint. The difference is that the interrogatories served on Petra Zavala not only seek evidence and facts in support of her contentions against Defendant but also request information regarding her various claimed damages.

Plaintiffs argue that the interrogatories request expert opinion; the Court disagrees. The majority of the interrogatories can be answered without expert input. For example, witnesses who observed Plaintiff’s conduct on the escalator could be identified to support the contention that Plaintiff acted in a reasonable manner. Similarly, maintenance records could provide part of the factual basis for Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant had prior knowledge of any defect with the escalator.

While some of the interrogatories may touch on areas requiring expert opinion, such as technical aspects related to the escalator, the party can still provide responses for portions that do not require expert analysis. For instance, facts such as maintenance history, records of prior incidents, or witness testimony regarding the escalator's condition do not necessitate expert opinion

The argument that discovery is ongoing does not justify a blanket objection to answering the interrogatories. No case or statute recognizes such an objection. A party is required to respond to the best of their ability based on the facts and evidence available at the time. If some information is known to Plaintiffs, it must be provided, and if no information is available, Plaintiffs must state as such. Should additional information become available during the discovery process, Plaintiffs may supplement their responses accordingly. If expert testimony is required for specific aspects of a response but cannot be provided at this time, Plaintiffs can indicate that an expert opinion will be forthcoming, and Defendant can seek a supplemental response later. In the meantime, Plaintiffs are obligated to answer the interrogatories to the best of their ability with the information available when the questions were posed.

Plaintiffs also raise the issue that the interrogatories are overly burdensome. However, Plaintiff's counsel points to her trial schedule and her inability to effectively respond to discovery as the primary cause of the burden. The issue, therefore, stems from counsel's schedule rather than the nature of the requests themselves, which does not render the interrogatories overly burdensome.

Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied. Defendant noted in its opposition that had Plaintiffs requested an extension, it would have been granted. Based on this assertion, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer on a possible extension for Plaintiffs’ responses.

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 without leave.