Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV01937, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22STCV01937    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 55

TINSLEY v. THE LOFTS ON LA BREA,                                                 22STCV01937

Hearing Date:  5/17/23,  Dept. 55.

#7:   MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT, LA BREA REGENCY, LLC.

 

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

 

MP:  Plaintiffs

RP:  Defendant LA BREA REGENCY, LLC.

 

 

Summary

 

On 1/18/22, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that defendants, as owners of an apartment building at 1616 North La Brea Ave, Los Angeles, received complaints from tenants regarding the uptick in violence in the area, but defendants ignored the concerns, and on or about 1/18/20, plaintiffs were visiting friends at the property, when an unknown individual shot both plaintiffs.

The cause of action is Negligence.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving parties request an order compelling further responses to special interrogatories 7, 8, 10, and 26, and document requests 2, 4-8, 15-18, 22, 24-32, 42, 44-46, 49-52, and imposing monetary sanctions, on grounds including the following:

 

·         As to the special interrogatories, Defendants asserted various boilerplate objections and failed to provide any response at all, as specified in the separate statement.

·         As to document requests, the following issues arise:

 

First, the responses violate Code of Civil Procedure §2031.210 (a)(1)-(2) by failing to state without qualification or objection either that Defendant will comply with the request or lacks the ability to do so (with an explanation as to why). As to those Requests to which LBR could “partially comply,” LBR referenced the production of documents “in whole” without specifying what happened to remaining portion of document requested.

 

Second, the responses violate Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230’s requirement of specifying that a diligent search and inquiry has been conducted and whether

responsive documents ever existed.

 

Third, the “objections” raised are prima facie meritless and/or frivolous. A party

may not “deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an

evasive answer." Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783. Objections

must convey with specificity the grounds upon which they are made and must be

made with substantial justification. CCP § 2030.240(b). Under CCP § 2023.010(e) providing responses that consist primarily of unjustified, boilerplate objections may constitute misuse of the discovery process.

 

RP Positions

 

Opposing party advocates denying, and imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel Filer Palmer LLP, jointly and severally, in the amounts of $5,311.65 and $820, for each opposition to the combined discovery motion, for reasons including the following:

 

·         Good cause is not shown.  Plaintiff’s requests ask for the facts supporting Defendants contention, and Defendants have identified that they are listed, in detail, in Plaintiff’s own medical records. Plaintiff has provided no authority that Defendant must interpret the equally available medical records and independent medical exam reports to Plaintiffs in its discovery responses.

·         Technical defects are insufficient to find non-compliance.  St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779.

·         With respect to Special Interrogatory 7 and 8, Plaintiff never met and conferred on this interrogatory. With respect to interrogatory 10, this was supplemented in Defendants further responses. With respect to Special Interrogatory 26, Defendant supplemented this response in its further responses, Defendant explicitly stated that complaints were made orally and that the oral complaints were about the parking lot, not the apartments themselves.

·         Defendant stated in its original response, and further in its supplemental response, that the documents being requested were not being produced as Defendant did not have the documents, the leases of non-involved tenants would be an invasion of privacy, and that any conversations with other apartment buildings, if they exist, have no relevance and not responsive. This is all that is by the Code. See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.

·         Meeting and conferring was inadequate.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The motion is granted.

On or before 6/16/23, responding the responding Defendant shall serve further responses, and produce documents, without objections, and in full compliance with the California Discovery Act, CCP §2016.010 et seq., as to the special interrogatories and requests for documents served by moving plaintiffs.

On or before that same date, the responding party, Defendant LA BREA REGENCY, LLC., and defense counsel of record BORDIN SEMMER LLP shall pay discovery sanctions in the sum of $5,311.66 to moving parties JAYMEN TINSLEY and JAYQUAN CRITTENDEN, the Court finding the absence of substantial justification.    E.g., CCP   § 2023.030.

The supplemental discovery responses are somewhat close to compliance with the Discovery Act, but still need improvement.  Opposing counsel cited an inapposite opinion that addressed “substantial compliance” as to admission-request responses pursuant to a specific statute allowing that, and not interrogatories or documents.  See  St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779  (“We turn to examine whether St. Mary's proposed response to the Schellenberg RFAs substantially complied with section 2033.220.”).

Interrogatory responses must be (1) the information sought, (2) an exercise of a valid option to produce writings, or (3) an objection.  Hernandez v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, 293.  An interrogatory response must be as complete and straightforward as reasonably available information permits.  CCP §2030.220.  A response must “represent the interrogated party's present best and complete answer.”  Fuss v. Sup. Ct. (1969) 273 Cal. App. 2d 807, 816.

If a respondent does not have personal knowledge for a full response, the party shall so state and make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiries. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 406; Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.  Where interrogatory responses reveal all information currently available to a party, but the respondent cannot furnish all requested information, then the party should set forth the efforts made to obtain that information.  Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 782, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444.

If interrogatory responses lack specificity, then parties may move to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(a), providing for motions to compel, where parties deem that an answer is evasive, incomplete, or inadequate as to specification of documents.  Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1190 (dictum).

“If an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document.” Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1190.

A document response must consist of:  1) an agreement to comply, stating whether the productions or inspection will be allowed “in whole or in part,” and that all documents or things in the possession, custody or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made, will be included, by the date set for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designated timing is subject to objection);   2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have possession of documents;  or, 3) objections and specification of withheld documents.  CCP §§2031.210(a), 2031.220, 2031.270, 2031.280 (production).  

 Compliance includes all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the “‘possession, custody, or control’” of the responding party, such as from other corporations.  Roche v. Hyde (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 757, 813  (quoting CCP  § 2031.220).

With regard to document requests, a response expressing an inability to comply shall state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was made to locate the items, and the reason for an inability to comply, including that the item never existed, was lost or stolen, was destroyed, or is not in respondent’s possession, along with the identity and address of anyone believed to have the document.  CCP §2031.230. 

“Even where a party deems a demand to be objectionable, he [she, or it] still must identify those items which fall into the category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.”  Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 n.3.

The objections are overruled.

As to the relevance and good-cause objections, information about witnesses of the conditions of the subject real property and the defendants’ knowledge of those, are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, because owners, possessors or controllers of real property can be liable for injuries caused by foreseeable crimes, under certain circumstances.  See, e.g.,  Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 245  (heightened foreseeability, such as prior similar incidents or other indications of reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct on defendant’s business premises, can support an obligation to protect customers, and other special-relationship-based duties may exist such as to respond to unfolding events by taking reasonable measures);  Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 1205, 1213  (“the existence and scope of a property owner's duty to protect against third party crime is a question of law for the court to resolve.”);  Eric J. v. Betty M. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 715, 722 (premises liability may be based upon crimes, depending upon foreseeability, or conditions of the property or activities);  Margaret W. v. Kelley R.  (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 141, 156  (“foreseeability must be measured by what the defendant actually knew.”);   Yu Fang Tan v. Arnel Management Co.  (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1100  (courts have required only similar (not necessarily identical) incidents around the area (not necessarily on the same property)).  

Privacy is not shown.  A privacy objection is not ripe for adjudication before a court where there is no factual basis for ruling, such as respondents’ identifying the documents withheld in a privilege log or elsewhere. Connecticut Indem. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 807, 818.  Cotenants’ addresses involve minimal privacy intrusion. Disclosure of addresses and telephone numbers does not amount to a serious invasion of privacy rights.  Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.  (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 544, 561.

The attorney-client privilege is not shown.  “[I]f documents responsive to a document request are withheld on privilege grounds, a privilege log or some equivalent specification of any asserted privilege objection ‘shall’ be supplied.”  Roche v. Hyde (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 757, 813.

Burden in answering is not evidenced.  Objecting parties must file evidence detailing the amount of work involved, in order to support objections based upon burden and oppression.  West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417. 

Finally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58.  “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.