Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 18STCV03561, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV03561    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 13, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(4) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Responding Party: Plaintiff French Fabric, Inc.

T/R:    DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER ARE GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY WITHIN 7 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

            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 17, 2021, Plaintiff French Fabric, Inc. 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

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 an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

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.)

A. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set 8

            Defendant moves to compel further responses to requests for production set 8. In opposition, Plaintiff represents supplemental responses are forthcoming. As supplemental responses have not yet been served, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court declines to award sanctions.

B. Motions to Compel Further Responses to Supplemental Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production

            Defendant moves to compel further responses to supplemental special interrogatories, form interrogatories and requests for production. This discovery requests state, “If the information provided in each of your answers to [special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for production] previously served upon you in this action is not correct or complete as of the present date, identify the answer and state whatever information is required to make such answer correct and complete as of this date.”

Plaintiff objected to these requests on the ground that they are overburdensome and harassing.

            The supplemental requests merely ask Plaintiff to confirm that the previous discovery responses were correct and to produce any additional documents or state any additional information that was not disclosed previously. If Plaintiff has already provided complete responses to the previous discovery, Plaintiff may say so in response to the supplemental discovery. This is not overburdensome or harassing.

            Defendant’s motions are GRANTED. The Court declines to award sanctions.