Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22STCV23004 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV23004, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23004 Hearing Date: May 9, 2023 Dept: C

MCCLENON v. CITY OF CERRITOS

CASE NO.: 22STCV23004

HEARING: 5/9/23 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant City of Cerritos’s motion for protective order is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant City of Cerritos moves for a protective order pursuant to CCP §§ 2017.020, 2019.030, 2030.090 and 2033.080.

This is a trip and fall case. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges: “Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based on such information and belief, alleges that on or about September 26, 2021, the City of Cerritos maintained the sidewalk located between 13745 and 13751 Beach Street Cerritos, CA 90703. On further information and belief, Defendant Brightview Tree Care Services Inc., performed tree trimming and related arborist maintenance at or near the subject PREMISES on March 5, 2021. Because of Defendant the City of Cerritos’ and Defendant Brightview Tree Care Services Inc.’s blatant neglect and failure to maintain, repair, and control the sidewalk and parkway located between 13745 and 13751 Beach Street Cerritos, California—the Decedent sustained fatal injuries.” (Id., ¶ 20.) “On or about September 26, 2021, and prior to that date, the PREMISES was and is the property of Defendant the City of Cerritos.” (Id., ¶ 23.) “Prior to September 26, 2021, Defendant the City of Cerritos, designed, constructed, built and/or maintained the PREMISES.” (Id., ¶ 24.) “Prior to September 26, 2021, an employee or employees of Defendant the City of Cerritos, negligently designed, built, constructed and/or maintained the PREMISES in that the height, slope, vertical displacement and/or the tree selection and/or placement exceeded reasonable design guidelines and practices relating to the public sidewalk and public parkway.” (Id., ¶ 25.) “Prior to September 26, 2021, Defendant the City of Cerritos, had actual knowledge of the existence of the PREMISES and knew of its dangerous character and condition described above.” (Id., ¶ 26.) “Prior to September 26, 2021, Defendant the City of Cerritos, had constructive notice of the existence of the above-described condition in that the condition existed for a sufficient period and was of such an obvious nature that Defendant, the City of Cerritos, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character prior to the accident date. Defendant, the City of Cerritos, had the authority and it was his/her/their responsibility to inspect the PREMISES or to see that inspections were made to determine whether the PREMISES constituted a dangerous condition and to take adequate measures to protect against a dangerous condition at the expense of the Defendant, the City of Cerritos, and the funds and other means for doing so were immediately available to him/her/them.” (Id., ¶ 27.) “Defendant the City of Cerritos, failed to design, build, construct and/or maintain the PREMISES in accordance with reasonable design guidelines and/or failed to remedy the dangerous condition.” (Id., ¶ 28.) “Defendant Brightview Tree Care Services Inc., and all Doe Defendants (collectively “Defendants”) failed to comply with the standard practice for safe walking surfaces.” (Id., ¶ 47.) Based thereon, the FAC asserts causes of action for:

1. Dangerous Condition of Public Property (v. City of Cerritos)

2. Negligence (v. Brightview Tree Case Services)

3. Premises Liability (v. Brightview Tree Case Services)

4. Wrongful Death (v. all Defendants)

"The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires
to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense." (CCP §§ 2030.090(b) [interrogatories], 2033.080(b) [requests for admission]; see also CCP §§ 2017.020(a) [discovery], 2019.030(a)(2) [discovery].) When deemed proper, a court may issue a protective order directing that written discovery need not be answered, that responses be provided only upon certain conditions, or that the time to respond to discovery be extended to a time beyond the normal 30 day statutory period. (CCP §§ 2030.090(b) [interrogatories], 2033.080(b) [requests for admission].)

“The law imposes no duty on a landowner — including a public entity — to repair trivial defects, or to maintain its property in an absolutely perfect condition. A property owner is not liable for damages caused by a minor, trivial or insignificant defect in property. Some defects are bound to exist even in the exercise of reasonable care in the maintenance of property and cannot reasonably be expected to cause accidents.” (Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4^th 559, 566.)

The court finds that the requests pertaining to the Special Meeting and other sidewalks and uplifts may lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. In Stathoulis v. City of Montebello, “the presence of not one, but three, irregularly shaped and sizeable holes of about an inch deep flanking one another in the street may have both increased the risk of injury to a reasonably careful pedestrian, and decreased the possibility of his or her recovery… [in] attempting to regain one’s balance after tripping in one hole is caught.” (Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4^th 559, 569.) The Special Meeting statements may contain information about other sidewalk uplifts “flanking” or near the one that the deceased tripped over.

The court also finds that requests pertaining to “Tree City USA” may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The complaint alleges that a tree-trimming company was negligent in its maintenance of the trees. A reasonable juror may find that the City’s trees may cause uplifting of the sidewalks.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

No sanctions because the court finds substantial justification exists.