Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 24STCV14433, Date: 2025-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14433    Hearing Date: April 16, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

This action arises out of a physical battery suffered by Plaintiff inside a 99 Cents Only Stores location. 99 Cents Only Stores contracted with Defendant Universal Protection Services to provide security services, and Plaintiff alleges that the assigned security guard failed to intervene during the attack.

The discovery at issue are Defendant Universal’s responses to Form Interrogatories 1.1 and 15.1.

On December 17, 2024, the Court conducted an IDC. During the IDC, Defendant agreed to provide amended responses to the interrogatories by January 3, 2025. On January 3, 2025, Defendant served amended responses. Plaintiff alleges the responses were again deficient. On March 27, 2025, Defendant served further amended responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories.

In the reply, Plaintiff concedes that the response to Interrogatory No. 1.1 is sufficient. As to Interrogatory No. 15.1, Plaintiff alleges Defendant in the further amended responses failed to state facts, witnesses, and documents supporting its affirmative defenses.

As to Defendant’s further amended responses to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1, the Court finds that Defendant adequately identified witnesses by naming the responding party and Plaintiff. Because parties are not permitted to contact represented individuals directly, Defendant properly indicated that the responding party may be contacted through their attorneys of record, rather than providing direct contact information. As to documents, Defendant referenced a distinct set of documents in support of each affirmative defense, including the Master Services Agreement, surveillance video, and LAPD report. The Court does not see how Defendant failed to identify documents supporting its affirmative defenses, as alleged by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff also argues that no facts are provided in support of the affirmative defenses. However, the Court examined the responses and found this is not so. For example, in support of the No Breach of Duty defense, Defendant states:

"Security Professional Xzavier Jackson was working at the subject property on the day of the incident but was not on active duty at the time of the incident. The Master Security Services agreement provides for security professionals to leave the site for their legally required lunch break. Further, the agreement does not require a security professional to be on-site constantly without a break. Responding Party was not notified of the incident until after it had occurred. It is Responding Party’s understanding that LAPD responded to the scene of the incident."

This factual statement supports Defendant’s position that it owed no duty at the time of the incident because the guard was off duty and the contract did not require continuous on-site presence.

Likewise, in support of the Comparative Fault defense, Defendant states:

"Plaintiff had the ability to leave the scene of the incident but did not even after the alleged assault. In fact, Plaintiff willfully engaged with this unknown individual despite his aggression, which directly evidences his own failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care on his own behalf."

Defendant did identify facts, witness and documents in support of its affirmative defenses.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Likewise, sanctions are denied.

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.