Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV24875, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24875    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

                    I.INTRODUCTION 

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff Steven Pagliaro (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Tenten Wilshire, LLC, Amidi Partners, LLC, Amidi Real Estate, LLC, Admidi, LLC (“Defendants”) alleging two causes of action for premises liability and general negligence. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff, a tenant of the Subject Property, was using the back staircase that was slippery, uneven, and/or otherwise dangerous. Plaintiff fell and was injured.

On January 20, 2023, Defendants Tenten Wilshire, LLC, and Amir, LLC filed an Answer.

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One, as to Amir, LLC. As of November 29, 2023, no opposition has been filed.

                 II.LEGAL STANDARD 

The propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to a demand for production if the propounding party deems that production is deficient, incomplete, or contains meritless objections.  CCP § 2031.310(a).  The legal burden to justify refusing or failing to provide discovery lies with the objecting party.  (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220). 

The motion must be accompanied by a good-faith meet-and-confer declaration. CCP § 2031.310(b). “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate . . . involves the exercise of discretion.” (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016).  “The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.  Judges have broad powers and responsibility to determine what measure and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.”  Id. 

CCP § 2031.310 provides the court shall apposes monetary sanctions against a person, party, or attorney that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless that subject to sanction acted “with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.”  CCP § 2023.010(h).  The court “may impose a monetary sanction” against any attorney or party, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, if there has been a “misuse of the discovery process.  CCP § 2023.030(a).  “A trial court has broad discretion when imposing a discovery sanction.”  (Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559). 

              III.DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Amir, LLC, to provide further responses, without objections, to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 20-21, 17-42, 49-54, 56, 64-68, 70-72, 74-76, 80-87, 89-90, and 91-96.

Background:

            Plaintiff propounded the initial Requests for Production of Documents back on August 29, 2022, with a deadline of September 28, 2022. Defendant served unverified responses on January 4, 2023. Over the next months, Plaintiff sent multiple meet and confer letters to defense counsel, granted multiple extensions and set up an Informal Discovery Conference. By August 29, 2023, Plaintiff granted Defendant one final extension, with responses due on September 12, 2023. However, as of the date of this motion, Plaintiff has not received verified substantive responses.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses were insufficient, some of which contained objections. Some of Defendant’s responses indicated that discovery was still ongoing and is still searching for documents, others objected to the requested information and stated this information was protected under the work product privilege, and the information sought premature disclosure of expert-related information. Moreover, despite responding to many of the responses that they would comply with the request, Defendant has failed to produce any documents that are responsive to the requests.

After reviewing the responses to these questions, the Court finds that further responses must be provided. Here, Plaintiff is seeking relevant information. “Section 2017.010 and other statues governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor or disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes of denial’” (Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1, 15). These requests seek documents that include, but are not limited to, policies or procedures in place at the time of the incident, inspection guidelines, other incidents involving the same location, recent repairs or modifications of the staircase, maintenance records, videos or photographs of the area, and insurance policies. However, Defendant’s responses are insufficient. Many of the responses do not comply with CCP § 2031.210-2031.240. Moreover, despite indicating that it would comply with a number of responses, Defendant failed to produce documents that correspond to the requests. Thus, this information is relevant as it concerns the documents and electronically store information about the incident, such as reports and videos. Moreover, Plaintiff agreed that it would “exclude Defendant Amir’s attorneys and others” from “person” in the defined terms. Defendant has failed to provide a sufficient reason for not sufficiently responding to these Requests for Production of Documents, and discovery disclosure is construed liberally.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. 

Sanctions:

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Further, sanctions are mandatory in the event that a party “unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification…” (CCP § 2031.310).

Plaintiff requests $2,936.65 in sanctions. This is based on an hourly rate of $250 for a total of 11.5 hours. This is based on the following:

Review of Initial Discovery Responses 1.0

January 23, 2023, Meet and Confer Letter 1.0

May 4, 2023, Meet and Confer Letter 1.0

August 22, 2023, Meet and Confer Letter 1.0

Preparation of IDC Form 0.5

Preparation of Motion 1.5

Preparation of Separate Statement 3.0

Anticipated Review of Opposition 0.5

Anticipated Preparation of Reply 1.0

Court Appearance 1.0

Total Time 11.5

Additionally, Plaintiff requests $61.65 for the costs of filing this motion.

The Court finds that the hourly rate of $250 is reasonable. However, the court has already granted sanctions related to most of the functions set forth above as part of the series of discovery motions. Any further work for each of these pending motions had to have been minimal. Accordingly, the Court grants reasonable sanctions as to this motion in the amount of $500.

Defendant is to provide further responses without objection and pay the $500 in sanctions ordered herein within 30 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice. 

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 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. 

Dated: December 4, 2023