Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV24797, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV24797 Hearing Date: January 31, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff Monica Cortes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Costco Wholesale, Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”), Daisy Doe, and Does 1-100 for general negligence and premises liability.
On December 7, 2022, Costco removed the case to federal court. On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed notice of entry of an order remanding the case back to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
On April 18, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to replace Daisy Doe with the defendant’s true name, Daisy Montez (“Montez”).
On October 5, 2023, Costco filed an answer. On March 11, 2024, Montez filed an answer.
On July 24, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendant Costco Wholesale without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On
August 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed (1) a
motion to compel Costco’s further responses to requests for production of
documents, set two, to strike Costco’s objections, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Costco’s further responses to special
interrogatories, set two, to strike Costco’s objections, and for sanctions, (3)
a motion to compel Costco’s further responses to requests for admission, set two,
to strike Costco’s objections, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on October
16 and 17, 2024. On September 24, 2024, Costco
filed oppositions and requests for sanctions.
At Plaintiff’s request, the hearings were continued to December 11 and
12, 2024. The Court later continued the
hearings to January 31, 2025.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Informal Discovery Conference
The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.”
The parties participated in an IDC on September 18, 2024.
B. Timeliness
A notice of motion to compel further responses to requests for production, interrogatories, or requests for admission must be given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, any supplemental verified response, or any later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c) [demand for inspection]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c) [interrogatories]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c) [requests for admission].) Failure to file a motion by this deadline constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses.
Plaintiff filed her motions on August 22, 2024, the deadline to which the parties agreed. (Farid dec., exh. L.)
C. Meet and confer
A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or interrogatories must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd (b)(2) [demand for inspection]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1) [interrogatories].) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
Costco does not challenge Plaintiff's meet and confer declarations.
D. Separate statement
With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.
Plaintiff has filed separate statements.
APPLICABLE LAW
A. Demand for inspection
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides in part:
“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
“(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
“(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:
“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.
“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).)
B. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in part:
“(a) 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.
“(b) (1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.
“(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300, subds. (a), (b), (c), (d).)
C. Requests for admission
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290 provides:
“(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:
“(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.
“(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.
“(b) (1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.
“(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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.
“(e) If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to requests for admission, the court may order that the matters involved in the requests be deemed admitted. In lieu of, or in addition to, this order, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290.)
DISCUSSION
Served: March 19, 2024
Responses: May 8, 2024
Motion filed: August 22, 2024
Request for production of documents number 27: The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to this request.
Request for production of documents number 32: The Court overrules Costco’s objections and grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to this request.
Request for production of documents number 34: The Court overrules Costco’s objections and grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to this request.
The Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions.
B. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Costco’s further responses to special interrogatories, set two
Served: March 19, 2024
Responses: May
8, 2024
Motion filed: August 22, 2024
Special interrogatory numbers 15, 16, 17: The Court overrules Costco’s objections and grants in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to these interrogatories. The Court limits the time frame for Costco’s responses to the period between January 1, 2015 and the date of the incident (August 13, 2020).
The Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions.
C. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Costco’s further responses to requests for admission, set two
Served: March 19, 2024
Responses:
May
8, 2024
Motion
filed: August 22, 2024
Request for admission number 28: The Court overrules Costco’s objections and grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to this request.
Request for admission number 34: The Court overrules Costco’s objections and grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to this request.
Request for admission number 35: The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to this request.
The
Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff Monica Cortes’ motion to compel Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s further responses to requests for production of documents, set two. The Court grants the motion with respect to requests for production of documents, set two, numbers 26, 32, and 34. The Court denies the motion with respect to requests for production of documents, set two, number 27.
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff Monica Cortes’ motion to compel Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s further responses to special interrogatories, set two. The Court grants the motion with respect to special interrogatories, set two, numbers 15, 16, and 17. The Court limits the time frame for Costco’s responses to the period between January 1, 2015 and the date of the incident (August 13, 2020).
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff Monica Cortes’ motion to compel Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s further responses to requests for admission, set two. The Court grants the motion with respect to requests for admission, set two, numbers 28 and 34. The Court denies the motion with respect to requests for admission, set two, number 35.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Monica Cortes’s requests for sanctions.
The Court DENIES Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s requests for sanctions.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.