Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV27428, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV27428 Hearing Date: September 23, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 22STCV27428
On August 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Estate of Wyndham Wayne Chow by and through its personal representative Josie Tang, Kou Keola Arikawa by and through his guardian ad litem Kazumi Arikawa, and Anzu Olina Arikawa by and through her guardian ad litem Kazumi Arikawa filed an action against Defendants California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), City of La Canada Flintridge (“City”), and Does 1-100 for statutory liability/dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability/negligent acts of public employees, and negligence. (Case number 22STCV27428.)
On August 24, 2022, the Court appointed Kazumi Arikawa to serve as Plaintiff Kou Keola Arikawa’s guardian ad litem. On August 26, 2022, the Court appointed Kazumi Arikawa to serve as Plaintiff Anzu Olina Arikawa’s guardian ad litem.
On November 10, 2022, the Court dismissed the second cause of action without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On November 14, 2022, the City filed an answer. On November 15, 2022, the City filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Debra Ariana Claro, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Roes 1-50 for apportionment, indemnification, and contribution. On December 13, 2022, The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, erroneously sued as California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (“Caltrans”) filed an answer to the City’s cross-complaint.
On December 1, 2022, Caltrans filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Debra Ariana Claro and Zoes 1-50 for equitable indemnity, comparative indemnity, and declaratory relief.
B. Case number 22STCV28812
On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff Oliver Chow, by and through his guardian ad litem Terry Kung, filed an action against Caltrans, the City, and Does 1-30 for statutory liability/dangerous condition of public property and negligence. (Case number 22STCV288212.)
On January 4, 2023, Caltrans filed an answer. On January 5, 2023, the City filed an answer.
C. The Court relates and consolidates the cases.
On February 1, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV27428 and 22STCV28812 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV27428 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On March 14, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to consolidate the cases for all purposes. Case number 22STCV27428 remained the lead case.
D. Motions to compel further discovery responses
On June 5, 2024, Plaintiffs Oliver Chow, by and through his guardian ad litem Terry Kung, Estate of Wyndham Wayne Chow by and through its personal representative Josie Tang, Kou Keola Arikawa, by and through his guardian ad litem Kazumi Arikawa, and Anzu Olina Arikawa, by and through her guardian ad litem Kazumi Arikawa (“Plaintiffs”) filed (1) a motion to compel Caltrans’ further responses to request for production of documents, set one, (2) a motion to compel Caltrans’ further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and (3) a motion to compel Caltrans’ further responses to form interrogatories, set one. The motions were set for hearing on July 22 and 25, 2024. Caltrans filed oppositions and requests for sanctions on July 23 and July 24, 2024. Plaintiffs filed replies on July 29 and July 30, 2024. The Court continued the hearings to September 23, 2024.
Trial
is currently scheduled for June 11, 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 IDCs on May 16, 2024 and July 23, 2024.
B. Timeliness
A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the verified responses, or any supplemental verified responses, or on or before any later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c) [demand for inspection]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c) [interrogatories].) Failure to file a motion by this deadline constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses.
Plaintiffs assert that Caltrans agreed to extend the time to file a motion to compel until 60 days after an IDC. The first IDC took place on May 16, 2024. Plaintiffs filed the motions on June 5, 2024, before the deadline.
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.)
Plaintiffs have provided 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.
Plaintiffs 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., § 1031.310, 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).)
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice
The
Court grants Plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.)
B. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Caltrans’ further responses to special interrogatories, set one
Served: March
1, 2023 and June 14, 2023
Responses: May
23, 2023
Further responses:
January 16, 2024
In its amended response to special interrogatory 1, Caltrans stated: “At the intersection of the 210 eastbound freeway onramp and Foothill Boulevard, [Caltrans] owns the 210 freeway within its right of way, 210 freeway structure within its right of way and only the area of Foothill Boulevard directly below the 210 freeway structure within its right of way.” Caltrans’ amended responses to other special interrogatories include similar language about its “right of way.”
According to Caltrans, it cannot provide more precise responses because Plaintiffs’ special interrogatories included imprecise language. But any imprecision in the special interrogatories does not explain why Caltrans cannot state what it means by “within its right of way.”
Caltrans also asserts that it “produced in Exhibit 11 records that reflect Caltrans’s right of way . . . .” (Opposition pp. 8-9.) Caltrans cited these records in its amended responses as “Bates CT0020764-0020796.” The amended responses also cited “Exhibit 15 [Bates CT0020865-875]” and “Exhibit 16 [Bates CT0020876-895],” which appear to be maintenance agreements between Caltrans and the City of La Canada. (See Opposition to Separate Statement pp. 89-90.)
The Court cannot locate these records in the parties’ submissions and therefore cannot determine whether they provide sufficient information about Caltrans' "right of way" to satisfy Caltrans’ discovery obligation. The Court continues the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 40 and orders Caltrans to submit a supplemental declaration providing copies of the records cited in its amended special interrogatory responses which, according to Caltrans, reflect “Caltrans’ right[s] of way.”
Continued: Numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 40
Granted: Numbers 3, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
Denied: Numbers 11, 13, 14, 15, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
The Court denies Caltrans’ request for sanctions.
C. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Caltrans’ further
responses to form interrogatories, set one
Served: March
1, 2023 and June 14, 2023
Responses: May
23, 2023
Further
responses February 22, 2024
The Court denies the motion.
Caltrans requests $2,420.00 in sanctions based on 11 hours of attorney time at a rate of $220.00 per hour. Counsel spent eight hours preparing Caltrans’ opposition and anticipated spending two hours to review Plaintiffs’ reply and prepare for the hearing and one hour to appear at the hearing.
The Court grants $880.00 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time.
D. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Caltrans’ further
responses to requests for production of documents, set one
Served: March
1, 2023 and June 14, 2023
Responses: May
23, 2023
Further responses: January 16, 2024
Denied:
Numbers 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22, 23, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42,
44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61
The Court denies Caltrans’ request for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 40 to a date to be provided at the September 23, 2024 hearing.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant Caltrans’ further responses to special interrogatory numbers 3, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 and orders Caltrans to provide further verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories by October 22, 2024.
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant Caltrans’ further responses to special interrogatory numbers 11, 13, 14, 15, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, and 63.
The Court DENIES Defendant Caltrans’ request for sanctions on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories.
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant Caltrans' further responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court GRANTS Defendant Caltrans’ request for sanctions on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories and orders Plaintiffs and their counsel to pay Defendant Caltrans $880.00 in sanctions by October 22, 2024.
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant Caltrans' further responses to request for production of documents, set one, numbers 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22, 23, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 61. On Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents number 2, the Court’s ruling tracks the rulings on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories. The Court DENIES Defendant Caltrans’ request for sanctions on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further production of documents.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.