Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV02213, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

On April 2, 2025, the Court heard Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Set Two, and Set Three, specifically regarding Special Interrogatories Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 24, 25, 28, and 29. The Court adopted the tentative ruling as to Nos. 12, 13, 14, and 15, and continued the motion as to Nos. 24, 25, 28, and 29, as well as the issue of sanctions, to the present date.

On April 3, 2025, Defendant filed a supplemental declaration stating that verifications to the outstanding discovery were served on Plaintiff’s counsel on March 20, 2025, and that Verified Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three (Nos. 28 and 29), were served on April 3, 2025. Defendant also advised the Court that Defendant has stipulated to negligence. Accordingly, Special Interrogatories Nos. 28 and 29 are now moot, and the only remaining issues are Special Interrogatories Nos. 24 and 25.

Both Special Interrogatories Nos. 24 and 25 ask whether Defendant disciplined Labrietta Pierce for vehicle-related incidents or for safety concerns involving patrons. In light of Defendant’s stipulation to negligence, the scope of discovery is now limited to matters relevant to causation and damages. These interrogatories are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries or the amount of damages suffered. The existence or nonexistence of prior disciplinary actions against an employee does not affect the degree to which Defendant’s negligence caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Only evidence directly related to the incident, such as the speed and force of the impact, may have some relevance to the issue of damages. The Court does not see how prior incidents or disciplinary actions involving unrelated conduct would shed light on the speed or force of the impact in this particular incident.

To the extent Plaintiff argues that such evidence is relevant for impeachment, that argument fails. There will be no testimony offered at trial disputing fault, and therefore no foundation for impeachment on that issue. Furthermore, Special Interrogatories Nos. 24 and 25 seek information about disciplinary actions concerning vehicle operation or patron safety—categories that do not involve dishonesty, false statements, or moral turpitude. As such, they do not implicate character for truthfulness and cannot be used for impeachment under Evidence Code section 780 and 787. Defendant need not provide further responses to these interrogatories.

Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Set Two, and Set Three. In the Separate Statement, Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 4, 5, 6, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 29, and 31.

Please produce all DOCUMENTS containing any witness statements related to the underlying INCIDENT in this case.

Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and seeks the production of documents which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Without waiving its objection, responding party states: Responding party does not have documents responsive to this request in its possession or control.

Any and all photographs or videos, or exact laser reproduced copies thereof, which depict the scene, location, or objects of the INCIDENT.

Any and ALL DOCUMENTS REFLECTING statements and of any witnesses to the INCIDENT.

Defendant’s responses to Requests for Production Nos. 4, 13, and 15 are not code-compliant. Each response asserts that Defendant does not have responsive documents in its possession or control, but fails to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.

When a responding party cannot comply with a document request because the item is not in their possession, custody, or control, the statement of inability to comply must:

2. State that the inability to comply is because the item has never existed, has been destroyed, lost, misplaced, or stolen, or is no longer in the party’s possession, custody, or control; and

3. Set forth the name and address of the person or organization believed to have possession, custody, or control of the requested item. (C.C.P. § 2031.230.)

Defendant’s responses omit all three required elements. There is no representation that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry were made. Nor is there any explanation for why the documents are not in Defendant’s possession or control. Defendant also failed to identify any third party believed to possess the documents. Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant further responses within 20 days of today.

Please produce all DOCUMENTS showing LABRIETTA PIERCE’s driving history obtained by you, encompassing the three years prior to the INCIDENT.

Objection. This request seeks information which is vague, ambiguous, overbroad and seeking information which is not relevant or calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as responding party has admitted that Labrietta Pierce was an employee of defendant at the time of the alleged incident.

Any and ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, REFLECTING, or RELATING TO disciplinary records related to LABRIETTA PIERCE’S employment history with LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.

Any and ALL DOCUMENTS constituting, REFLECTING, or RELATING TO LABRIETTA PIERCE’S driving record obtained by LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.

These requests are not relevant because Defendant has admitted liability for the incident. Requests concerning Labrietta Pierce’s prior driving history (Request No. 5), disciplinary records from a former employer (Request No. 26), and driving records obtained by a former employer (Request No. 27) relate only to issues of fault or prior conduct. Once liability is admitted, discovery must be limited to the remaining issues in the case, namely, causation and damages.

Documents concerning an employee’s prior conduct, particularly conduct unrelated to the subject incident, do not bear on the force of impact, the mechanism of injury, or the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s damages. These records do not make it more or less likely that Plaintiff sustained the injuries alleged, and therefore are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff argues that these records may be used for impeachment or character evidence, such use is not permissible under Evidence Code sections 780 and 787, as the documents do not relate to dishonesty or moral turpitude. Discipline for vehicle-related or safety-related incidents may show prior conduct, but do not implicate character for truthfulness and are therefore inadmissible for impeachment purposes.

Any and ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, including REPORTS, which RELATE TO or REFLECT the maintenance and repairs of DEFENDANT VEHICLE from June 4, 2017 to the present.

Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad as to time and subject matter, and seeks information which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

In light of Defendant’s stipulation to negligence, this request is no longer relevant. The Court does not find that reports relating to or reflecting the maintenance and repairs of the Defendant vehicle would bear on the force or impact of the collision, or otherwise be relevant to the issues of causation or damages. Any alleged mechanical issues, such as brake failure, have no bearing on the amount of force involved in the collision. The force of impact is determined by the speed and mass of the vehicle, not the internal reason why the vehicle failed to stop. While such issues might explain why the driver did not brake in time, that goes to the question of negligence, which is no longer at issue. These records do not speak to the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries or the measure of damages. Accordingly, no further response is required.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19 (Set One):
Any and ALL DOCUMENTS, including REPORTS, RELATING TO or REFLECTING any investigation YOU or anyone on YOUR behalf conducted regarding the INCIDENT.

Objection. This request seeks information which violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine insofar as it seeks internal reports prepared by responding party in anticipation of potential litigation.

Any and ALL DOCUMENTS REFLECTING or RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS YOU have had with any PERSON from June 4, 2022 to the present regarding the INCIDENT.

Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad as to time and subject matter and seeks information which is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Any and ALL DOCUMENTS REFLECTING or RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and LABRIETTA PIERCE from June 4, 2022, to the present.

Objection. This Request seeks the production of documents which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine and is overbroad, vague, ambiguous and cannot be answered with reasonable certainty.

Requests for Production Nos. 19, 22, and 29 raise potential issues concerning the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. However, the objections asserted are conclusory and fail to satisfy Defendant’s obligation to substantiate any claims of privilege. A party asserting privilege must provide a privilege log or sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to evaluate whether the withheld documents are in fact protected.

While communications between a party and its counsel are protected under the attorney-client privilege, and documents prepared in anticipation of litigation may fall under the work product doctrine (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030), the scope of these requests is broader than those protections.

The requests at issue may encompass documents relevant to causation and damages, including communications or reports reflecting the speed, force, or circumstances of the impact. These are factual matters that relates to the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries.

Accordingly, because these requests encompass both potentially privileged and clearly non-privileged materials, Defendant is ordered to serve code-compliant further responses, including a privilege log identifying any withheld documents, within 20 days of the date of this order. Request No. 29 is limited to communication relating to the incident at issue.

Any and ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRING TO, REFLECTING, RELATING TO the INCIDENT (this shall include any photographs taken from a CAMERA).

Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and seeks the production of documents which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Without waiving its objection, responding party states: Responding party believes that it was provided photographs by plaintiff's counsel allegedly taken by plaintiff

The request is overbroad on its face. It seeks “any and all documents referring to, reflecting, relating to the incident,” which is an extremely expansive formulation that may encompass a wide array of materials with only a tangential or remote connection to the incident. it lacks any limitation as to time, subject matter, or category of. As framed, the request would require Defendant to search through virtually all business records, internal communications, and digital files to determine whether they contain any reference, however minor, to the incident. Such an open-ended request is not reasonably tailored to discover relevant information and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant need not produce further responses to this request.

Any and ALL DOCUMENTS REFLECTING or RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and the LACMTA Supervisor who obtained a statement from LABRIETTA PIERCE regarding the incident, from June 4, 2022, to the present.

Objection. This request seeks information which is broad, burdensome, not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objection, responding party will agree to meet and confer regarding the production of defendant’s Bus Operator Rule Book/Standard Operating Procedures.

The response to Request for Production No. 31 is deficient for two reasons. First, the response fails to clearly state whether all responsive documents will be produced, cannot be complied with, or are being withheld based on objections, as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210. By not affirmatively stating that all responsive documents will be produced, the response leaves open the possibility that documents are being withheld without proper justification or identification.

Second, the response references a willingness to meet and confer regarding the production of Defendant’s Bus Operator Rule Book or Standard Operating Procedures, which is entirely nonresponsive to the request. The request seeks documents reflecting or relating to communications between Defendant and the LACMTA Supervisor who obtained a statement from LABRIETTA PIERCE regarding the incident. It does not request policies or procedures, and it is unclear how the Rule Book or SOPs are responsive to this request

Additionally, communications relating to a statement concerning the incident are relevant, or at minimum reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as they may contain details regarding the force and speed of the impact, which can shed light on issues of causation and damages. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

On the issue of sanctions, the Court finds that Defendant did not act with substantial justification regarding the verifications. Although Defendant has shown that verifications were served on March 20, 2025, that service occurred well after the motions to compel further responses were filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff was justified in bringing the motions to obtain the verifications and should be compensated. Sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,000 for both the motions to compel further responses to the Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories are granted against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff within 20 days of the date of this order.

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