Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00065, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00065, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00065 Hearing Date: February 14, 2024 Dept: C

tenort v. city of pico rivera

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00065

HEARING: 2/14/24 @ 10:30 AM

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to His Requests For Production is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to his Form Interrogatories is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

4. The State’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Vance Tenort (Plaintiff) seeks to compel further responses to his Requests for Production (set one) and Form Interrogatories (set one). Plaintiff and Defendant State of California (the State) seek sanctions.

Background

This is a single motor vehicle accident which occurred when Plaintiff drove his motorcycle on Beverly Boulevard to enter the on-ramp of Interstate 605. Plaintiff alleges he was thrown from his motorcycle when it made contact with a drop-off in the roadway. Plaintiff was injured as a result. Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the City of Pico Rivera, the County of Los Angles, and the State of California for Premises Liability. Plaintiff dismissed the City and County.

Legal Standard

CCP § 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP § 2030.300(a).)

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to compel to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 31 and 32 and Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.3, 12.5, 12.7, 13.1,

Request for Production

Privilege

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 31 and 32 on the grounds that the State did not provide a privilege log or sufficiently identify the documents it withheld on the basis of privilege. The State asserts in opposition that the only documents withheld on the basis of privilege are communications between counsel and client.

“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (CCP § 2031.240(c)(1).)

The State is ordered to provide a supplemental response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production and include the basis for its assertion of privilege, however, no privilege log is necessary at this point.

Form of Production

Plaintiff seeks to compel the State to produce the IMMS Work Order list with the inspections and maintenance on the roadway.

The State is not ordered to produce a separate list containing only certain work orders. The requests seek documents which relate to maintenance of the roadway of Beverly Boulevard and the on-ramp of Interstate 605 near Bevely Boulevard from 2017 to 2023. Plaintiff complains that the State over included work orders and “forces Plaintiff to search for a handful of inspections amongst between [800 and 6,000].” However, based on the Court’s review of the production, it appears that each work order is responsive to the requested category. Productions 1 (Ex. G), 2 (Ex. H), and 3 (Ex. I) are all limited to Interstate 605 from mile 14.234 to 14.407. (Shiener Decl., Exs. G, H, I.) Productions 1 and 2 are for the dates February 2, 2017 to February 11, 2022 and Production 3 is for the dates January 1, 2016 to November 7, 2023. The only difference between Productions 1 and 2 are the included columns with Production 2 including “Item IDs,” Item Description,” and “Total Usage.” Thus, the Court is not convinced that the State is manipulating the Productions to overburden Plaintiff with document not responsive to their requests. These documents all appear to be within the category sought by the Requests. Therefore, the State is not ordered to tailor its production to a more restrictive category than was requested.

Documents After the Incident

Plaintiff’s request to compel production of documents is moot because the State has produced documents after the date of the incident in Production 3.

Interrogatories

The State is not ordered to provide a further response to No. 12.3. The State responded that no written or recorded statement was obtained by the State. Should the State attempt to introduce such evidence at trial, Plaintiff may move to exclude the evidence or testimony.

The State is not ordered to provide a further response to No. 12.5. The State provided the traffic collision report related to the incident instead of taking the responsive information from the traffic collision report such that Plaintiff could identify the report.

The State is not ordered to provide a further response to No. 12.7. The State has provided a list of persons who have inspected the scene in their production of the IMMS Work Orders. Plaintiff has sufficient information to determine which individuals have information he believes is helpful to his claims.

The State is not ordered to provide a further response to No. 13.1. The State responded that no surveillance was obtained by the State. Should the State attempt to introduce such evidence at trial, Plaintiff may move to exclude the evidence or testimony.

The State is not ordered to provide a further response to No. 20.6. The State was not present at the incident and does not have personal knowledge. The Court is unconvinced that compelling a further response would yield any additional information.

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand for production of documents unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), 2033.290(d).)

Defendant acted with substantial justification in opposing Plaintiff’s Motions. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production was justified as he prevailed in part. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories was made with substantial justification. However, a similar motion made in this case would be without justification.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to His Requests for Production is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The State must provide a further response within 20 days of this Order. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to his Form Interrogatories is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. The State’s request for sanctions is DENIED.