Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV20941, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20941    Hearing Date: March 19, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

At issue is Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, served on Defendant City of Los Angeles. The Court held an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) on February 7, 2025; however, Defendant City of Los Angeles failed to appear. As a result, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed with the motion to compel. The specific requests at issue are Requests for Production Nos. 10-21.

RFPs 10, 11 & 21

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Any and all agreement(s) related to maintenance, repairs, cleaning, inspections, or other work conducted on the SUBJECT PREMISES in effect from five years prior to the INCIDENT through the date of the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Any and all DOCUMENTS evincing or constituting maintenance, repairs, cleaning, inspections, or other work conducted on the SUBJECT PREMISES in the last 10 years.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Any and all DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who have conducted maintenance, repairs, or inspections of the SUBJECT PREMISES at any point in the last 10 years.

Defendant may be liable if it created or contributed to the dangerous condition through faulty maintenance or improper repairs. Under Government Code § 835, actual or constructive notice is not required when a public entity’s own negligence causes the hazardous condition. The five-year timeframe is reasonable, as it allows Plaintiff to investigate whether Defendant’s maintenance efforts contributed to the condition, whether prior repairs were attempted, and whether any previous work may have exacerbated the defect. Additionally, maintenance records can demonstrate whether Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

However, the Court finds that the request, as currently phrased, is overly broad and could encompass irrelevant records unrelated to the alleged hazard, such as unrelated construction projects or traffic sign installations. To balance Plaintiff’s right to relevant discovery with Defendant’s concerns regarding overbreadth, the Court limits production to documents specifically related to the maintenance, repair, and inspection of the subject intersection for the five years preceding the incident.

RFP 12 & 13

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Any and all DOCUMENTS evincing or constituting the training of YOUR employees or agents from five years prior to the INCIDENT through the date of the INCIDENT regarding DANGEROUS CONDITIONS (e.g., uplifts, large cracks, or holes in sidewalks) on streets YOU own or control.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Any and all DOCUMENTS evincing or constituting YOUR policies and procedures from the last 10 years related to DANGEROUS CONDITIONS (e.g., uplifts, large cracks, or holes in sidewalks) on streets YOU own or control.

Plaintiff seeks documents reflecting Defendant’s training materials and internal policies regarding dangerous conditions on streets it owns or controls. These requests are relevant to establishing whether Defendant had adequate procedures in place to inspect, repair, and maintain hazardous conditions like the pothole at issue. Such documents are critical in determining whether Defendant had a reasonable inspection program, as required to establish constructive notice under Government Code § 835, or whether Defendant’s maintenance practices contributed to the creation or worsening of the pothole.

However, the request, as originally phrased, is overbroad. To balance Plaintiff’s right to relevant discovery with Defendant’s concerns, the Court limits production to documents for the five years preceding the incident and restricts training materials to those specifically related to the inspection, repair, and maintenance of dangerous conditions on public roadways, including potholes and similar defects.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.14: Any and all DOCUMENTS evincing or constituting COMPLAINTS from any PERSON regarding the SUBJECT PREMISES in the last 10 years.

Plaintiff seeks all complaints related to the subject premises in the last 10 years. Complaints regarding the condition of the roadway, particularly the pothole at issue, are relevant to proving Defendant had notice of the dangerous condition.

However, to avoid overbreadth and production of irrelevant complaints unrelated to the alleged defect, the Court limits the request to complaints made for the five years preceding the incident and only those related or involving the pothole at issue.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Any and all DOCUMENTS evincing or constituting citations YOU have written concerning the SUBJECT PREMISES in the last 10 years.

The Court finds this request to be overbroad and overly burdensome as written and denies the request to order further responses. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Any and all DOCUMENTS evincing or constituting YOUR communications with any and all PERSONS concerning the SUBJECT PREMISES in the last 10 years.

Plaintiff seeks all communications regarding the subject premises over the past 10 years. Such a broad request would include communications unrelated to the pothole, making it unduly burdensome. However, communications between Defendant and third parties (such as contractors, other governmental entities, or residents) regarding the pothole at issue are relevant to notice and liability.

The Court limits the request to communications specifically concerning the pothole from five years prior to the incident to the present. Defendant must provide a privilege log for any documents withheld on the basis of privilege.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Any and all DOCUMENTS evincing or constituting permits issued pertaining to the SUBJECT PREMISES in the last 10 years.

Plaintiff requests all permits issued for the subject premises over the past 10 years. Permits related to roadwork, maintenance, or repairs could help establish whether the Defendant had undertaken any work that contributed to or failed to fix the dangerous condition.

However, a request for all permits over a decade is overbroad and likely to include unrelated projects. The Court limits production to permits involving the repair or maintenance of the pothole at issue for the 5 years preceding the incident.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All reports, including but not limited to incident reports pertaining to the SUBJECT PREMISES in the last 10 years, whether generated by YOU or another PERSON or entity.

Plaintiff seeks all incident reports related to the subject premises over the past 10 years. Reports of prior accidents involving the same hazardous condition are relevant to proving that Defendant was on notice of the defect and failed to take corrective action.

However, requiring all incident reports for the entire location over 10 years is unnecessarily broad and could include reports on unrelated accidents. The Court limits the request to incident reports for 5 years preceding the incident and only those involving to the pothole at issue.

RFP 19 and 21

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Any and all DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY any and all owners of the SUBJECT PREMISES at any point in the last 10 years.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Any and all DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS with control of the SUBJECT PREMISES at any point in the last 10 years.

Plaintiff seeks documents identifying past owners of the subject premises and individuals or entities responsible for maintenance and repairs over the last 10 years. Defendant argues that ownership and control of the roadway are undisputed, rendering the request unnecessary. However, unless Defendant stipulates that it owned and controlled the subject intersection at the time of the incident, Plaintiff is entitled to obtain these documents to meet its burden of proof.

Conclusion 

Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant responses to Requests for Production Nos. 10-14 and 16-21 within 20 days of today, subject to the limitations outlined above.

Although Plaintiff’s motion was largely granted, the Court finds Defendant’s positions to be substantially justified and thus does not award sanctions.

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.