Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 18STCV00932, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV00932    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 13, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Moving Party: Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Responding Party: Plaintiff B&S Property Management, LLC

T/R:    DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ARE DENIED.

            DEFENDANT to notice. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff B&S Property Management, LLC filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Southern California Regional Rail Authority, asserting one cause of action for negligence/dangerous condition of property. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants owned and/or maintained a property adjacent to Plaintiff’s property, which contained a homeless encampment in the alley. Plaintiff alleges that a fire started in the encampment on property in Defendants’ control and spread to Plaintiff’s property, causing damage.

ANALYSIS

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)

Defendant moves to compel further responses to requests for production sets 8 and 9. Set 9 seeks documents related to the post-fire improvements to the building and post-fire conversion of the subject property to include cold storage facilities. Plaintiff objected to the requests on the ground of relevance and vagueness. In opposition, Plaintiff explains that information about post-fire improvements is not relevant to the calculation of the reduction in values from the fire, citing CACI 3903F. Defendant did not file a reply to establish otherwise.

Plaintiff represents that further responses to requests for production set 8 have been served.

Defendant’s motions to compel further responses are DENIED.