Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV11209, Date: 2025-03-10 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 23STCV11209 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On May 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Yeymi Alexandra Perez Ramirez, Gloria Leslie Reyes, and Saul Andres Reyes, by and through his guardian ad litem Bertha Ramirez, individually and as successors in interest to Lucas Obdulio Perez Vicente, filed this action against Defendants 1037 North Sycamore (Los Angeles) Owner, L.P. (“Owner”), CIM Group, L.P. (“Group”), CIM Holdings, LLC (“Holdings”), and Does 1-50 for wrongful death.
On May 31, 2023, the Court appointed Bertha Ramirez Hernandez to serve as Plaintiff Saul Andres Reyes’s guardian ad litem.
On September 21, 2023, the Court sustained the demurrer of Owner, Group, and Holdings to Plaintiffs’ complaint with leave to amend.
On October 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. On December 6, 2023, the Court sustained the demurrer of Owner, Group, and Holdings to the first amended complaint with leave to amend.
On December 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On April 10, 2024, the Court overruled the demurrer of Owner, Group, and Holdings to the second amended complaint. On April 22, 2024, Owner, Group, and Holdings filed an answer to the second amended complaint.
On October 24, 2024, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant JLG & JLG LLC as Doe 1. On January 23, 2025, Defendant JLG & JLG LLC filed an answer.
B. These motions
On November 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed:
1. A motion to compel Group’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on January 16, 2025.
2. A motion to compel Group’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on January 17, 2025.
3. A motion to compel Group’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on January 16, 2025.
5. A motion to compel Holdings’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on January 15, 2025.
6. A motion to compel Holdings’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on January 14, 2025.
7. A motion to compel Owner’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on January 14, 2025.
8. A motion to compel Owner’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on January 13, 2025.
9. A motion to compel Owner’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on January 13, 2025.
On December 27, 2024, Owner, Group, and Holdings filed oppositions. On January 7, 8, and 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed replies. The Court continued the hearings to March 10, 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 December 12, 2024.
B. Timeliness
Unless notice of a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection 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., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)
The motions are timely.
C. Meet and confer
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.
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).)
THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
The second amended complaint includes the following allegations:
On or about July 13, 2021, Plaintiffs’ decedent, Lucas Obdulio Perez Vicente (“Decedent”) was employed by an unknown company in the State of California. In that capacity, Decedent was working at a construction site on Owner’s property located at 1037 North Sycamore, Los Angeles, California 90038 (“property”). Group and Holdings were the property developers.
Defendants negligently owned, maintained, controlled, supervised and/or managed the property without the proper safety precautions and/or warnings, which exposed Decedent to an unreasonable risk of harm. Defendants negligently hired, retained, or contracted with the remaining Defendants, who Defendants knew or should have known were incompetent to perform the work on the property; negligently exercised control over the details of the work performed by the Defendants; negligently provided equipment, including altered, modified, defective and/or otherwise unsafe equipment to the Defendants; and were negligent in the use and maintenance of the premises, all of which contributed and/or caused Decedent’s fatal injuries.
On July 13, 2021, Defendants directed Decedent to perform work at the property consisting of construction activities. Defendants had not advised and/or warned Decedent of the dangers, known or which should have been known, to Defendants nor was he provided protective gear, safety equipment, training and/or instruction on how to safely perform the task he was directed to perform at the property. As a result of the failure to warn, instruct, train, and provide for safety equipment, while Decedent was performing work at the property, unsecured 2” x 4” lumber beams fell from an overhead location on Decedent, causing severe injuries that resulted in his death.
The property presented a hazardous condition in the form of an unsecured 2” x 4” lumber beams at the property. Defendants contracted with Decedent to perform contracting services located on the property even though Defendants knew and/or should have known that Decedent was an unlicensed contractor. Defendants allowed Decedent to perform work with actual and/or constructive notice that Decedent was an unlicensed handyman, and that the performance of the work for which Decedent was hired required a license under California law. At no time did Decedent represent to Defendants that he was a licensed contractor.
Defendants directly and/or indirectly hired Decedent to do construction work and/or general work at the property. Defendants permitted Decedent to work at the property without being required to obtain and/or maintain the requisite contractor’s license. By operation of Labor Code section 2750.5, Defendants assumed the responsibility of employing Decedent as their own employee. Therefore, Defendants were Decedent’s de facto employer(s) and are therefore fully liable in tort.
Defendants did not obtain, maintain, and/or have workers’ compensation insurance applicable to the property at the time of the incident for Decedent. Plaintiffs’ claims are not subject to any defense of exclusive remedy under the Workers’ Compensation Act because Defendants failed to secure the payment of compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act and failed to obtain workers’ compensation insurance coverage that would provide workers’ compensation benefits to Decedent. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to remedy in tort.
DISCUSSION
Demand for production of documents served: May 20, 2024
Responses served: September 10, 2024
Verification served: September 30, 2024
Motion filed: November 14, 2024
Granted (with a privilege log for materials covered by attorney-client privilege or attorney work product rule): 9, 10, 16, 19
Denied: 1, 2, 22, 26
Sanctions: The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. Plaintiffs prevailed on four of their eight requests. In addition, Plaintiffs did not respond for more than one month to the meet and confer request contained in Owner’s responses to the demand for production of documents. Plaintiffs then gave Owner a two-day deadline to provide further responses.
II. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Owner’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one
Responses served: September 10, 2024
Verification served: September 30, 2024
Motion filed: November 14, 2024
Granted: 21-23. Owner has not carried its burden of establishing the preliminary facts that are essential to the claims of attorney-client privilege and work product protection asserted in its objections. (See L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 8:192, p. 8C-61 (Cal. Practice Guide).)
Denied: 1-4
Sanctions: The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. (See Part I, ante.)
III. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Owner’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one
Form interrogatories served: May 20, 2024
Responses served: September 10, 2024
Verification served: September 30, 2024
Motion filed: November 14, 2024
Sanctions: The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. (See Part I, ante.)
IV. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Group’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one
Responses served: September 10, 2024
Verification served: September 30, 2024
Motion filed: November 14, 2024
Denied: 1-2
Sanctions: The Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions. Although Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter did not discuss Group’s discovery responses in detail, the letter’s introduction listed Group as one of the parties whose responses Plaintiffs believed were “incomplete,” the letter addressed Plaintiffs’ substantive arguments concerning Group’s responses, and the IDC also addressed these issues. See also Part I, ante.
V. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Group’s responses to special interrogatories, set one
Responses served: September 10, 2024
Verification served: September 30, 2024
Motion filed: November 14, 2024
Denied: 1-4
Sanctions: The Court denies the parties’ requests for sanctions. See Parts I, IV, ante.
Responses served: September 10, 2024
Verification served: September 30, 2024
Motion filed: November 14, 2024
Denied: 4.1
Sanctions: The Court denies the parties’ requests for sanctions. See Parts I, IV, ante.
VII. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Holdings’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one
Responses served: September 10, 2024
Verification served: September 30, 2024
Motion filed: November 14, 2024
VIII. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Holdings’s responses to special interrogatories, set one
Responses served: September 10, 2024
Verification served: September 30, 2024
Motion filed: November 14, 2024
Responses served: September 10, 2024
Verification served: September 30, 2024
Motion filed: November 14, 2024
CONCLUSION
The Court orders Defendant 1037 North Sycamore (Los Angeles) Owner, L.P. to provide further verified code-compliant responses to demand for production of documents, set one, numbers 9, 10, 16, 19, and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested, with a privilege log for any materials covered by attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection, by March 24, 2025. In all other respects, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant 1037 North Sycamore (Los Angeles) Owner, L.P.’s further responses to the demand to production of documents.
The Court orders Defendant 1037 North Sycamore (Los Angeles) Owner, L.P.’s to provide further verified code-compliant responses to special interrogatories, set one, numbers 21-23 by March 24, 2025. In all other respects, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant 1037 North Sycamore (Los Angeles) Owner, L.P.’s further responses to special interrogatories.
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant 1037 North Sycamore (Los Angeles) Owner, L.P.’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one.
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant CIM Group, L.P.’s responses to form interrogatories, set one.
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant CIM Holdings, LLC’s responses to special interrogatories, set one.
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant CIM Holdings, LLC’s responses to form interrogatories, set one.
The Court denies all sanctions requests.
The Court orders moving parties to give notice of this ruling.
The Court orders moving parties to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.