Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01088, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV01088 Hearing Date: March 28, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV01088
Ada Zulema Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Ban, N.A.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
CONTINUING THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL WELLS FARGO NATIONAL
BANK ASSN’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS (Presently scheduled for Tuesday, April 2, 2024.)
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
alleges claims for premises liability and negligence arising from a dangerous
condition at Defendant’s property. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s
further responses request for production of documents. Plaintiff contends that Defendant
asserted only objections after Plaintiff granted extensions to respond.
Defendant maintains objections despite efforts to meet and confer.
Defendant filed
an opposing separate statement maintaining that its responses were Code
compliant. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief by March 21, 2024, (five court
days before the hearing.) (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 subd (b).)
II.
DISCUSSION
A
motion to compel further responses to a document request is proper where the
requesting party believes the statement of compliance is incomplete, or a
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive
and/or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) Additionally,
a party may move for an order compelling further responses to requests for
admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290.) Both motions require the parties to
meet and confer prior to filing the motion.
Plaintiff
served a document request for 93 categories of documents and 57 requests for
admission. (Mot. ISO RPD, Saeedian decl., Ex. 2; Motion ISO RFA,) Ex. 2.)
Defendant served objections only to both the document request and requests for
admission. (Mot. ISO RPD, Saeedian decl Ex. 2; Mot ISO RFA Ex. 3.)
The
discovery at issue seeks information relevant to Plaintiff’s burden of proof.
To prevail on a claim for premises liability, a plaintiff must establish the
existence of a dangerous condition and that the defendant knew or should have
known of it. (Vaughn
v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 553, 556.) Actual
or constructive notice of the dangerous condition is key to establishing
defendant’s liability." (Ortega
v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.) A
business owner’s duty to a person coming on the premises includes a duty to "inspect
the premises or take other proper action to ascertain their condition, and if,
by the exercise of reasonable care, the owner would have discovered the
condition, he is liable for failing to correct it." (Ortega
at 1207.)
Plaintiff
sent one letter to Defendant threatening to file motions to compel further
responses if Defendant did not serve further, verified responses to the
document request and requests for admission. (Id. Ex. 4.)
The Discovery Act obligates the moving party
to “declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain an informal
resolution of each issue” prior to filing a motion to compel. (Townsend
v. Superior Court (1998) 61
Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435 [adopting
federal guidelines requiring the parties to “present to each other the merits
of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support
during informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions. Only
after all the cards have been laid on the table, and a party has meaningfully
assessed the relative strengths and weaknesses of its position in light of all
available information, can there be a 'sincere effort' to resolve the matter.”].)
Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s
informal discovery conference statement, agreeing to provide further responses to
the document request except to Requests 1, 2, 6, 15, 18-27, 31, 33, 37, 49,
56-59, 71, 72, 75, 78-81, 83-86 if Plaintiff will agree to a protective order. Defendant’s
responses regarding the requests for admission also agrees to provide a further
response to some requests but not others.
The parties have not engaged in a serious
and good faith effort to meet and confer. Therefore, the
parties are ordered meet and confer prior to requiring the court’s involvement
with the following general principles in mind:
1)
Defendant’s actual or constructive
notice of the dangerous condition are relevant and discoverable.
2)
Discovery of prior incidents on the
property is relevant to Defendant’s notice of a dangerous condition. If Defendant withholds documents pursuant to a
privilege, Defendant must provide a privilege log.
3)
Potential witness identification of employees
who worked at the property on the day of the incident, identification of the
manager and assistant manager, and of employees assigned to maintain the
property on the date in question is relevant and discoverable.
4)
Documents showing inspections,
maintenance, prior incidents, are discoverable as Plaintiff is required to show
that Defendant did not act reasonably in discovering the dangerous condition.
5)
Training procedures regarding
accidents are relevant to Defendant’s exercise of its duty.
Based
on the foregoing, the Court continues the hearing on both motions to April 30, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department A of the Compton Courthouse. The parties are ordered
to submit a joint statement regarding the document requests and requests for
admission that remain at issue at least 10 court days prior to the hearing.