Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

MIRNA VALERIO MOLINA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ELYSIAN CITY LIGHTS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22STCV28511

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Action Filed: 09/01/22

Trial Date: Not set

Hearing date: September 13, 2024

Moving Party: Plaintiff Mirna Valerio Molina

Responding Party: None

Motion to Compel Defendant TK Elevator Corporation to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents-Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions.

The Court considered the moving papers. No opposition or reply papers were filed.

The motion is CONTINUED to October 31, 2024. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the issues raised in the motion.

Background

On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff Mirna Valerio Molina (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Elysian City Lights, Aperto Property Management, Inc., TK Elevator Corporation, and Does 1 to 50 (collectively “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) common carrier liability; (4) strict products liability; (5) negligent products liability; and (6) breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiff alleges that the elevator she was using at 1370 Allison Avenue, Los Angeles, jolted upwards as she was exiting it causing her to fall and sustain injury. According to the Complaint, the subject elevtor was owned and operated by Defendants.

On October 6, 2022, Defendants Elysian City Lights, Aperto Property Management, Inc. filed their Answer to the Complaint. On the same day, Defendant Tk Elevator Corporation filed its Answer to the Complaint and a Cross-Complaint against Aperto Property Management Inc. and Roes 1 to 25.

On Apil 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed its motion to compel Defendant TK Elevator Corporation to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents set one and request for monetary sanctions to which Defendant opposed on September 8, 2023, and Plaintiff replied on September 13, 2023.[1]

On September 25, 2023, the case was reassigned to Department 45 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The parties were ordered pending motions to be re-calendared in the new department and re-noticed by the moving party.

Currently before the Court, and set for hearing on September 13, is Plaintiff’s motion filed on November 3, 2023 to compel Defendant TK Elevator Corporation to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents set one and request for monetary sanctions. No opposition to this motion was filed.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

On receipt of a response to a Request for Production of Documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Motions to compel further responses to RPDs must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).) To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact. (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224, disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531; see also Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [characterizing good cause as “a fact-specific showing of relevance”].) If good cause is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to disclosure of the documents. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.)

Discussion

Insufficient Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.) “The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain an informal resolution of each issue.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion.” (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.) Where a party fails to make any real effort at informal resolution, a failure which is particularly egregious would justify an immediate and outright denial of further discovery. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 433-34; Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1437.)

Here, the Court finds that the meet and confer letter that Plaintiff’s counsel sent to Defendant’s counsel on March 24, 2023, requesting Defendant to provide supplemental responses to Requests for Production of Document to be inadequate. (Decl. of Asobie, Exh. A; See Stewart 87 Cal.App.4th at 1016.) There is no showing that in requesting Defendant to provide supplemental responses to said discovery—which was more of a demand—that Plaintiff and Defendant attempted to meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute. The letter hardly complies with the requirement that the declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.) The failure to meet and confer in good faith is further demonstrated by the time frame in which Plaintiff’s counsel sent the letter (March 24, 2023) and filed the original motion (April 3, 2023). It would lessen the burden on the Court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by the parties and the Court should the parties here reach informal resolution to all or part of the discovery in dispute. (See Townsend 61 Cal.App.4th at 1435.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is CONTINUED and the parties are ordered to meet and confer further. If the parties are able to fully resolve the discovery dispute, then the Court will take the Motion off calendar. If the parties are unable to resolve the entire dispute, then the Court will hear the dispute remaining after the parties adequately meet and confer.

It is so ordered.

Dated: September 13, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court