Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV33055, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33055    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Graciela Fonesca Garcia (Plaintiff) sued Defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc., dba Superior Grocers (Defendant), based on injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained in a slip and fall incident at Defendant’s store.  Plaintiff moves for a protective order to excuse Plaintiff from having to respond to Request for Admissions, set one (RFA), which Defendant served on Plaintiff.  Defendant has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:  (1) That the set of admission requests, or particular requests in the set, need not be answered at all.  (2) That, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2033.050, the number of admission requests is unwarranted.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.080, subd. (b)(1)-(2).)  A party seeking a protective order must show good cause for issuance of the order by a preponderance of the evidence.  (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.) 

Here, Plaintiff avers the RFA is excessive and constitutes an abuse of the Discovery Act.  Plaintiff first argues the RFA Nos. 55-81 violate attorney client protected information as they request Plaintiff admit that her Counsel referred her to various medical providers which may fall within confidential communication between client and lawyer.  (Evid. Code, § 952.)

Plaintiff next argues that the remaining RFAs, which seek information about whether certain providers accept Medi-Cal or whether certain medical procedures are typically covered by Medi-Cal, are improper and run counter to objective of Requests for Admission which are  meant “to narrow the issues and save the time and expense of preparing for unnecessary proof.”  (2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (3d ed. 1986) Discovery and Production of Evidence, § 1553, p. 1506).  Plaintiff states that the RFA is intended to establish Plaintiff’s choice to pay for rendered medical services out of pocket rather than use insurance.  Plaintiff states this issue is irrelevant in determining a claim for medical expenses which only requires demonstration of the amount of each claimed expense, its reasonableness, and whether it was caused by the injury at issue.  Plaintiff concludes because it is already clear this issue is not relevant to the case at issue, the subject RFA is not necessary and thus harassing.

Finally, Plaintiff argues the number of requests is unwarranted.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.030 which provides “[n]o party shall request, as a matter of right, that any other party admit more than 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents.”  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.040, a party may serve more than 35 requests for admission but only "if the greater number is warranted by the complexity or quantity of the existing or potential issues in the particular case."  Plaintiff states notwithstanding counsel for Defendants' declaration to the contrary, this relatively straightforward premises liability action does not warrant ninety (90) requests for admission especially when the RFA is being used for the purpose of determining the irrelevant issue of whether Plaintiff elected to pay for subject medical services out of pocket.

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Defendant propounded written discovery in a manner or to an extent that caused unwarranted annoyance or undue burden and expense, warranting monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (c), 2033.080, subd. (d).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, Tyson & Mendes, LLP and Brianna Z. Andrade, in the amount of $1060, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff has met her burden to show good cause for the issuance of the protective order.  Moreover, Defendant has not opposed the motion to show that the discovery is warranted.  Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for protective order, and excuses Plaintiff from responding to the RFA. 

Further, the Court orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, TYSON & MENDES, LLP and Brianna Z. Andrade, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1060 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file proof of service of such.