Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 20STCV02270 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20STCV02270, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 20STCV02270 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/8/22 TRIAL DATE: 1/19/23

Case 20STCV02270

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 2)

Motion filed on 3/8/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Elizabeth Corletto

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant 1058 Maclay LLC

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED

An order compelling Defendant 1058 Maclay LLC to provide: (1) further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Numbers 40, 41, 44, 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63, and 65; and (2) monetary discovery sanctions against Defendant 1058 Maclay LLC in the amount of $5,568.40.

RULING

The motion is granted as to Special Interrogatory (Set Two) Number 56. The motion is denied as to Special Interrogatory (Set Two) Numbers 40, 41, 44, 48, 50, 56, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63, and 65. The motion is denied as to monetary sanctions.

FACTUAL SUMMARY & RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a trip and fall incident that occurred on 1/22/19 on the sidewalk on the south side of Maclay Avenue. Plaintiff Elizabeth Corletto (Plaintiff) alleges that she walked across an iron grate next to the base of a tree in the sidewalk in front of the building located at 1056-58 N. Maclay Avenue when she tripped and fell because half of the grate was missing. Plaintiff contends that because of tall overgrown grass, Plaintiff could not see the missing grate or the trip and fall hazard. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff suffered various injuries.

On 8/2/19, Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant City of San Fernando. On 1/17/20, Plaintiff filed this action against the City of San Fernando. On 2/25/21, Plaintiff filed a DOE amendment substituting Defendant 1058 Maclay, LLC (Defendant) in place of DOE 1. On 3/16/21, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On 4/22/21, Defendant answered the First Amended Complaint. On 5/17/21, the City of San Fernando filed a cross-complaint against Defendant.

On 1/4/22, Plaintiff Elizabeth Corletto (Plaintiff) served the subject discovery on Defendant 1058 Maclay, LLC (Defendant). On 2/7/22, Defendant electronically served responses. Because the responses were not properly verified and Plaintiff found certain of the responses to be deficient, on 2/9/22, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter. Despite further meet and confer efforts, certain issues with the discovery responses were not informally resolved. Therefore, on 3/8/22, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Numbers 37–45, 47, 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63, 65 and 67–74. (The Court noted that Plaintiff seemed to concede confusion with its numbering.) Additionally, Plaintiff sought an order compelling Defendant to provide a proper verification for the responses. Further, Plaintiff requested sanctions in the amount of $5,568.40 against Defendant.

On 7/20/22, the Court ruled that the motion is moot with regard to the Special Interrogatories to which further responses have been served. The Court then continued the hearing as to the Special Interrogatories to which further responses had not been served. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file and serve an amended separate statement with numbers corresponding to the actual Special Interrogatories in Set Two which are still at issue. The Court allowed: (1) Plaintiff to file and serve a supplemental brief, limited to 5 pages, at least 16 court days before the continued hearing date; and (2) Defendant to file and serve a response to this amended separate statement and supplemental brief, also limited to 5 pages, at least 9 court days before the hearing. The Court did not allow a reply/response by Plaintiff to Defendant’s supplemental brief.

On 8/10/22, Plaintiff filed what appears to be a separate statement, 5 pages in length. However, the filing is titled as though it were a supplemental brief. Plaintiff did not file anything else. While this does not conform with the Court’s above-referenced Order, the Court accepts the filing. Plaintiff’s “Separate Statement” argues that further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two are outstanding for Numbers 40, 41, 44, 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63, and 65. Plaintiff now requests an order that: (1) compels further responses to these Special Interrogatories; and (2) authorizes monetary discovery sanctions.

On 8/11/22, Defendant filed a supplemental opposition, 6 pages in length (including signature block). While this also does not conform with the Court’s above-referenced Order, the Court accepts the filing. Defendant argues: (1) Plaintiff has not served an amended Separate Statement as required by the Court; (2) the Court must deny Plaintiff’s request for further responses to Special Interrogatory Numbers 48, 50, and 53 on the grounds that Defendant provided further verified responses to these interrogatories on May 26, 2022; (3) the rest of the interrogatories must be denied for reasons explained in the supplemental opposition; and (4) monetary sanctions should be denied because Defendant answered each of the interrogatories properly and in compliance with the code.

ANALYSIS

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 40: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “IDENTIFY who owns the trees located on the PREMISES that overhang the sidewalk where the INCIDENT occurred (For reference a photograph of the trees on the PREMISES is attached hereto as Exhibit 1).”

Defendant responded that the tree is owned by the City of San Fernando. Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because it is different from an answer given by Andrew Thibodeaux at his deposition testimony on April 7, 2022. Defendant argues that Defendant has responded.

Defendant’s response is sufficient to answer the question asked.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 41: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “IDENTIFY who owned the trees located on the PREMISES that overhang the sidewalk where the INCIDENT occurred when the INCIDENT occurred (For reference a photograph of the trees on the PREMISES is attached hereto as Exhibit 1).”

Defendant’s response is sufficient to answer the question asked.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 44: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “IDENTIFY all PERSONS that did landscaping work on the PREMISES during the ten year period prior to the INCIDENT.”

Defendant responded “Unknown at this time.” Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because it is different from an answer given by Andrew Thibodeaux at his deposition testimony on April 7, 2022. Defendant argues that the cited testimony of Andrew Thibodeaux is irrelevant to this special interrogatory, and that even if it was, the remedy is impeachment at trial.

Defendant’s response is sufficient to answer the question asked.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 48: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “During the three month period prior to the INCIDENT, how many times per month did Andrew Thibodeaux walk on the sidewalk in front of the PREMISES.”

Defendant initially objected that the question was overly broad and remote. On May 26, 2022, Defendant submitted an amended answer to this question: “Andrew Thibodeaux does not recall. He usually entered the building from the rear and rarely walked in the front of the building.” Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because it is different from an answer given by Andrew Thibodeaux at his deposition testimony. Defendant argues that amended responses have been submitted and so this interrogatory is not properly brought at this hearing.

Defendant’s response is both sufficient to answer the question asked and not properly brought at this hearing as an amended response has already been given.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 50: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “During the three month period prior to the INCIDENT, how many times per month did a representative of defendant 1058 Maclay LLC walk on the sidewalk in front of the PREMISES.”

Defendant initially objected that the question was overly broad and remote. On May 26, 2022, Defendant submitted an amended answer to this question: “See response to Special Interrogatory No. 48 since Andrew Thibodeaux would have been the only ‘representative of 1058 Maclay LLC’ to have walked in front of the building in the three months prior to the incident.” Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because it is different from an answer given by Andrew Thibodeaux at his deposition testimony. Defendant argues that amended responses have been submitted and so this interrogatory is not properly brought at this hearing.

Defendant’s response is both sufficient to answer the question asked and not properly brought at this hearing as an amended response has already been given.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 53: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “IDENTIFY all COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the conditions of the grass strip on the north side of the building on the PREMISES during the ten year period prior to the time of the INCIDENT. (For reference a photograph of the grass strip on the PREMISES is attached hereto as Exhibit 2).”

Defendant initially objected that the question was overly broad and remote. On May 26, 2022, Defendant submitted an amended answer to this question: “Responding Party is unaware of any communication relating to the grass strip over the past ten years.” Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because it is different from an answer given by Andrew Thibodeaux at his deposition testimony. Defendant argues that amended responses have been submitted and so this interrogatory is not properly brought at this hearing.

Defendant’s response is both sufficient to answer the question asked and not properly brought at this hearing as an amended response has already been given.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 54: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “During the three month period prior to the INCIDENT, how many times per month did Andrew Thibodeaux walk past the grass strip on the north side of the building on the PREMISES. (For reference a photograph of the grass strip on the PREMISES is attached hereto as Exhibit 2).”

Defendant responded “Unknown at this time.” Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because Andrew Thibodeaux “should be able to provide an estimate of how many times he walked past the grass strip for the purposes of responding to this interrogatory.” Defendant makes multiple arguments, including: (1) that Andrew Thibodeaux normally “drove” instead of “walked” by the strip; (2) that it asks him to recall events over 4 years ago; and (3) that Defendant has truthfully and completely responded by stating “Unknown.”

Defendant’s response is sufficient to answer the question asked.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 56: Grant.

This interrogatory asks: “During the three month period prior to the INCIDENT, how many times per month did a representative of defendant Maclay Ave. LLC walk past the grass strip on the north side of the building on the PREMISES. (For reference a photograph of the grass strip on the PREMISES is attached hereto as Exhibit 2).”

Defendant objected that the question was overly broad and remote. Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because Andrew Thibodeaux “should be able to provide an estimate of how many times he walked past the grass strip for the purposes of responding to this interrogatory.” Defendant makes the same arguments as for Special Interrogatory 56. However, Defendant incorrectly states that the answer for Special Interrogatory 56 was “Unknown” when Defendant actually objected to the question.

Defendant’s response is insufficient to answer the question asked and the objection is overruled as the question is not overly broad or remote.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 58: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “State the date upon which the METAL GRATE first came to be on the grass strip on the north side of the building on the PREMISES. (For reference a photograph of the METAL GRATE on the grass strip at the PREMISES is attached hereto as Exhibit 3).”

Defendant responded “Unknown at this time.” Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because it is different from an answer given by Andrew Thibodeaux at his deposition testimony. Defendant argues the response given is sufficient, as well as violations of CCP §§ 2030.66 and 2030.060.

Defendant’s response is sufficient to answer the question asked.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 59: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “State how long the METAL GRATE was on the grass strip on the north side of the building on the PREMISES. (For reference a photograph of the METAL GRATE on the grass strip at the PREMISES is attached hereto as Exhibit 3).”

Defendant responded “Unknown at this time.” Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because it is different from an answer given by Andrew Thibodeaux at his deposition testimony. Defendant argues the response given is sufficient, as well as violations of CCP §§ 2030.66 and 2030.060.

Defendant’s response is sufficient to answer the question asked.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 60: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “When did Andrew Thibodeaux first become aware of the METAL GRATE on the grass strip on the north side of the building on the PREMISES. (For reference a photograph of the METAL GRATE on the grass strip at the PREMISES is attached hereto as Exhibit 3).”

Defendant responded “Unknown at this time.” Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because it is different from an answer given by Andrew Thibodeaux at his deposition testimony. Defendant argues the response given is sufficient, and that the interrogatory contains violations of CCP §§ 2030.66 and 2030.060.

Defendant has already responded, and Defendant’s response is sufficient to answer the question asked. Thus, the Court does not reach whether the interrogatory violates the code.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 63: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “Describe in detail why the METAL GRATE is on the grass strip on the north side of the building on the PREMISES. (For reference a photograph of the METAL GRATE on the grass strip at the PREMISES is attached hereto as Exhibit 3).”

Defendant responded “Unknown at this time.” Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because it is different from an answer given by Andrew Thibodeaux at his deposition testimony. Defendant argues the response given is sufficient, as well as violations of CCP §§ 2030.66 and 2030.060.

Defendant has already responded, and Defendant’s response is sufficient to answer the question asked. Thus, the Court does not reach whether the interrogatory violates the code.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 65: Deny.

This interrogatory asks: “IDENTIFY all PERSONS that were aware that the METAL GRATE was on the grass strip on the north side of the building on the PREMISES at any time during the ten year period prior to the INCIDENT. (For reference a potograph of the METAL GRATE on the grass strip at the PREMISES is attached hereto as Exhibit 3).”

Defendant responded “Unknown at this time.” Plaintiff argues that the answer is evasive because it is different from an answer given by Andrew Thibodeaux at his deposition testimony. Defendant argues the response given is sufficient, as well as violations of CCP §§ 2030.66 and 2030.060.

Defendant has already responded, and Defendant’s response is sufficient to answer the question asked. Thus, the Court does not reach whether the interrogatory violates the code.

SANCTIONS

Since the motion was mostly unsuccessful, the Court finds that imposing sanctions under the circumstances against Defendant would be unjust. Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.310(d).