Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV24630, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24630    Hearing Date: November 7, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

REBECCA SUTTNER, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

SAMILL CORPORATION, ET AL., 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 21STCV24630 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH OR IN ALTERNATIVE PROTECTIVE ORDER 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

November 7, 2021 

 

Plaintiff, Rebecca Suttner (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant, Samill Corporation for damages arising from a slip and fall on stairs.   

 

At this time, Defendant Samill Corporation d/b/a The Blue Room (“Defendant”) moves to quash Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena served on DH Adjusters on July 28, 2023, or in the alternative, a protective order for DH’s investigative file.  Plaintiff opposes the motion and Defendant filed a reply.   

 

Defendant contends it already produced portions of DH Adjusters’ investigative file, which included written witness statements of Angela O’Gara, Sarine Gureghian, a diagram of the interior and exterior of the subject premises, photographs taken by DH Adjusters investigator, and a written summary of a recorded interview with Defendant’s employee John Grover. Defendant argues the subpoena served on DH Adjusters to obtain the entire investigation file is overbroad and seeks documents in violation of the attorney-work product doctrine.  

 

In opposition, Plaintiff contends the subpoena seeks relevant information that are generally discoverable, and that Defendant has not demonstrated the adjuster file is protected by the attorney-work product doctrine. Plaintiff also contends Defendant waived attorney-work product by already producing a significant portion of the adjuster file. 

 

 Defendant, in reply, avers defense counsel requested Specialty Insurance to retain an investigator to perform a preliminary investigation, do a site inspection, and contact client witnesses regarding the incident, and that therefore these were attorney-directed investigations. Defendant argues the documents produced to Plaintiff were not “cherry picked” for the benefit of Defendant, but produced documents aside from portions of the file covered under the attorney-work product doctrine.  

 

After considering the papers, the Court would like to discuss this matter with the parties. Counsel for both parties are ordered to appear at the hearing (the appearances may be remote), and to be ready to discuss the aforementioned issues, including the terms of the alternative request for protective order.  

 

The Court hopes to resolve the dispute at the hearing. However, if necessary, the Court will continue the matter for a final ruling.  

 

Moving party 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 6th day of November 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court