TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jose Mejia’s Motion to Compel Inspection is GRANTED. The parties shall meet and confer to set an inspection date to occur within sixty (60) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Jose Mejia’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff Jose Mejia to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff Jose Mejia (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant Arieh Cohensasson (“Defendant”) to comply with a demand for a contemporaneous inspection of the subject ladder and subject premises pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds that he has agreed to an inspection of the premises and ladder involved in the incident, but he objects to the simultaneous inspection because it is burdensome and costly because the ladder is in evidence storage in Ontario, California, pursuant to a demand for preservation, while the residence is in West Los Angeles, and Plaintiff seeks to examine the ladder and property together only to reduce expert witness fee costs.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, subdivision (a), provides that “[a]ny party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” “A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to photograph, test, or sample any tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made,” and “[a] party may demand that any other party allow the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to enter on any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subds. (c), (d).)

The Court finds there is good cause to order the simultaneous inspection of the ladder and the subject premises. It is clear from Plaintiff’s complaint that Plaintiff alleges failure of the ladder and dangerous condition of the subject property (Compl. ¶ 17) such that inspection of both the ladder and property is proper. Further, given that Plaintiff alleges that the “ladder gave way” (Compl. ¶ 16), the Court finds it proper to require inspection of both the ladder and the property at the same time, i.e., to allow the parties and their experts to inspect the ladder on the property to inform the parties’ understanding of the circumstances causing the alleged fall. While Plaintiff’s counsel initially stated in email communication that simultaneous inspection was preferred to avoid Plaintiff’s expert from having to make two trips, counsel later clarified that the expert needed to inspect the ladder at the property “because the surface area where the ladder was placed at the time of the incident is important to our analysis” (Mot., Farias Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10, Ex. D), and the Court agrees that such an inspection is relevant to the parties’ ability to prove their cases. Accordingly, Plaintiff Jose Mejia’s Motion to Compel Inspection is GRANTED. The parties shall meet and confer to set an inspection date to occur within sixty (60) days of entry of this order.

If a motion to compel an inspection is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The Court finds that monetary sanctions are not warranted here. Plaintiff’s counsel communicated that the reason for simultaneous inspection was to save expert costs, which is not a valid reason for requiring the opposing party to incur unnecessary costs, so Defendant was justified in refusing to allow the simultaneous inspection for that reason. While Plaintiff’s counsel later changed course, this was only communicated in one subsequent email, not the meet-and-confer letter. Accordingly, Plaintiff Jose Mejia’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.