Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02405, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02405    Hearing Date: May 14, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/14/24

Case #23CHCV02405

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Amended Special Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 12/12/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Food 4 Less

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Lorena Dominguez

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: A protective order: (1) limiting or restricting the scope of discovery sought by Plaintiff Lorena Dominguez (Plaintiff) in her Amended Special Interrogatories to information/evidence that proves or disproves the elements of the causes of action pled in Plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant to CCP 2017.020; and/or (2) limiting or restricting the frequency/extent/number of interrogatories Plaintiff may utilize, pursuant to CCP 2030.090(a) and 2019.030; and (3) by this motion, Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Food 4 Less (Food 4 Less) challenges Plaintiff’s declaration of necessity used to justify more than 35 interrogatories under CCP 2030.050, pursuant to CCP 2030.090(b)(2), and requests an order or ruling that, contrary to Plaintiff’s declaration, the number of special interrogatories is unwarranted. 

Additionally, Food 4 Less requests an order imposing sanctions jointly on Plaintiff and her counsel of record, Ruben Vardanyan of Vardanyan Law Firm, in the amount of $1,435.00.

RULING: The motion is denied. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiff Lorena Dominguez’s (Plaintiff) claim that she was injured when she slipped and fell on lettuce and/or water on the floor of a Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Food 4 Less (Food 4 Less) grocery store on 9/1/21.  On 8/9/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Food 4 Less and Sergio Pulido, a Food 4 Less employee she interacted with on the date of the incident, for: (1) Negligence and (2) Premises Liability which includes allegations of willful failure to warn.  On 9/7/23, Food 4 Less filed and served its answer to the complaint.

On 9/25/23, Plaintiff electronically served a first set of discovery which included 100 Special Interrogatories.  (Dawood Decl. ¶4).  After meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff withdrew her first set of discovery.  (Id. ¶5).  On 11/9/23, Plaintiff served her Amended Special Interrogatories, Set 1, which include 97 special interrogatories.  (Id. ¶6, Ex.B).

On 11/17/23, Food 4 Less sent a meet and confer letter regarding the amended discovery asking Plaintiff to withdraw and/or limit the discovery by 12/1/23.  (Dawood Decl. ¶7, Ex.C).  Despite follow-ups, Food 4 Less never received a response to the meet and confer efforts regarding the Amended Special Interrogatories, Set 1.  (Id. ¶¶8-9).

On 12/12/23, Food 4 Less filed and served the instant motion seeking a protective order: (1) limiting or restricting the scope of discovery sought by Plaintiff in her Amended Special Interrogatories to information/evidence that proves or disproves the elements of the causes of action pled in Plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant to CCP 2017.020; and/or (2) limiting or restricting the frequency/extent/number of interrogatories Plaintiff may utilize, pursuant to CCP 2030.090(a) and 2019.030; and (3) by this motion, Food 4 Less challenges Plaintiff’s declaration of necessity used to justify more than 35 interrogatories under CCP 2030.050, pursuant to CCP 2030.090(b)(2), and requests an order or ruling that, contrary to Plaintiff’s declaration, the number of special interrogatories is unwarranted.  Additionally, Food 4 Less requests an order imposing sanctions jointly on Plaintiff and her counsel of record, Ruben Vardanyan of Vardanyan Law Firm, in the amount of $1,435.00.

On 4/8/23, Plaintiff filed and served an “Opposition to Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Food 4 Less’s Motions for Protective Orders” which lists 5/16/24 as the only hearing date despite the fact that three separate motions for protective orders are on calendar for 5/14/24, 5/15/24 and 5/16/24.  On 5/7/24, Food 4 Less filed and served a reply.

ANALYSIS

The scope of discovery is broad.  CCP 2017.010 provides:

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

However, if the Court determines the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the Court must limit the scope of discovery.  See CCP 2017.020.

The party seeking a protective order has the burden to show “good cause” by presenting specific facts and admissible evidence establishing “undue burden,” etc. for the relief sought.  Fairmont Insurance Company (2000) 22 C4th 245, 255;  Goodman (1967) 253 CA2d 807, 819-820 .

With regard to Special Interrogatories, a party is limited to propounding 35 specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the action.  CCP 2030.030(a)(1).  However, a party may propound more than 35 special interrogatories if the greater number is warranted because of: (1) the complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case; (2) the financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition; and/or (3) the expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought and a declaration supporting the foregoing is served with the discovery.  CCP 2030.040(a); CCP 2030.050.  If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party has the burden of justifying the number of interrogatories.  CCP 2030.040(b). 

As noted above, Food 4 Less seeks to: (1) limit or restrict the scope of discovery sought by Plaintiff in her Amended Special Interrogatories to information/evidence that proves or disproves the elements of the causes of action pled in Plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant to CCP 2017.020; and/or (2) limit or restrict the frequency/extent/number of interrogatories Plaintiff may utilize, pursuant to CCP 2030.090(a) and 2019.030.  Additionally, Food 4 Less challenges Plaintiff’s declaration of necessity used to justify more than 35 interrogatories under CCP 2030.050, pursuant to CCP 2030.090(b)(2), and requests an order or ruling that, contrary to Plaintiff’s declaration, the number of special interrogatories is unwarranted. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to justify the 97 specially prepared interrogatories in this case that concerns allegations of negligence and failure to warn.  Even if some of the interrogatories overlap, Plaintiff has not served thousands of duplicative interrogatories causing undue burden.  See People v. Sarpas (2014) 225 CA4th 1539, 1552-1553 (protective order upheld limiting set of over 5,300 duplicative interrogatories).  Similarly, the Court finds that the interrogatories are relevant to the issues in this case as they may provide, or lead to the discovery of information, necessary to prove the elements of Plaintiff’s claims. 

Food 4 Less has failed to establish that the discovery is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.  CCP 2019.030(a)(1).  While Food 4 Less may find other methods of discovery more convenient for Food 4 Less, less burdensome and/or less expensive, it has failed to establish that such other methods of discovery are obtainable for Plaintiff (i.e., it may be too expensive for Plaintiff to depose all of the individuals necessary to obtain the information sought in the interrogatories).  Id.  Similarly, Food 4 Less has not shown that it would be unduly burdensome or expensive to respond to the subject interrogatories under the circumstances.  CCP 2019.030(a)(2).

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.  Plaintiff cites no authority for the request in the opposition.  Additionally, as noted above, Plaintiff filed one opposition in response to three separate motions set for hearings on three separate days with only one hearing date listed.  Also, the declaration submitted in support of the opposition does not allocate how much time was spent with regard to each motion.  (See Vardanyan Decl. ¶5).  As such, the Court cannot determine how much of the $3,000.00 in sanctions requested could properly be allocated to opposing the instant motion.

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied.  Food 4 Less is ordered to provide responses to the Special Interrogatories within 30 days.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s counsel is advised that in the  future separate oppositions to separate motions are required.  Failure to properly oppose motions in the future may result in opposition arguments not being considered.