Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV22501, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22501    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff David Takeda (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained when Defendant’s employee allegedly drove an industrial caddy” inside Defendant’s store and crashed into Plaintiff. 

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, against Defendant.  Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 15 and 19, which seek information regarding prior accidents or negligence by Defendant’s employees involving industrial carts.  The parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) concerning the discovery disputes on March 24, 2023.  After discussion, the issues were deemed resolved at the conclusion of the IDC. 

On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration asserting that at the IDC defense counsel agreed to produce certain information and reports, but to date, and despite attempts to meet and confer, Defendant has not provided the requested information as agreed at the IDC.  As of April 25, 2023, no response to Plaintiff’s counsel’s supplemental declaration has been received. 

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses

On receipt of a response to interrogatories the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with [the discovery statutes], any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending 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....”  (See Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012-13.)  “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement....’ [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.”  (Id. at 1013.) 

            Here, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 15 and 19, which state, “IDENTIFY and describe in detail any prior accidents with the industrial carts where any person (employee or customer) was injured in the past ten (10) years,” and “PLEASE IDENTIFY and describe any NEGLIGENCE by any of YOUR employees while driving YOUR CART(S) in the past ten (10) years.”  (Mot. Desimone Decl. Exh. A.)  In response to the special interrogatories, Defendant asserted various objections. 

            Plaintiff argues that the requested information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, as Plaintiff is seeking to ascertain whether the cart that hit Plaintiff posed an unreasonable risk of harm and involved the same of accident in which Plaintiff was injured.  Plaintiff contends that the information is relevant to proving that the carts were unnecessarily dangerous to individuals shopping at Defendant’s store. 

            In opposition, Defendant contends a further response should not be compelled to the special interrogatories because it properly objected to this interrogatory and ten years is too broad a period to be relevant.

            However, the party objecting responses to a discovery request has the burden of justifying the objection.  (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220; see also Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95.)  Defendant does not establish the appropriateness of any of its objections asserted in its responses.  Moreover, regarding Defendant’s contentions that ten years is too broad of a period to be relevant, Plaintiff agreed to limit the timeframe in the special interrogatories to five years prior to the date of the incident, June 17, 2019. 

            Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, Nos. 15 and 19 is granted.  Defendant is ordered to serve a further response to special interrogatories Nos. 15 and 19 within ten (10) days.  The requests are limited to information for five years prior to the date of the incident.  No sanctions are requested, and none are awarded. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 1^st day of May 2023