Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV07678, Date: 2024-05-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07678    Hearing Date: May 20, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

SUZANNE MARIE BROOKS, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV07678 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER   

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

May 20, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Suzanne Marie Brooks (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants County of Los Angeles, City of Pomona, Fairplex Enterprises, Inc., and Does 1 to 25 for damages arising from an alleged dangerous and hazardous condition on the property located at 1101 West McKinley Avenue in the City of Pomona.  

Defendant Los Angeles County Fair Association dba Fairplex Enterprises, Inc., sued as Fairplex Enterprises, Inc., (“Fairplex”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to its set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production (“RPDs”). In particular, Fairplex seeks further responses to (1) form interrogatories nos. 2.6, 6.4, and 12.1, (2) special interrogatories nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 28, and (3) RPDs no. 15.  

Plaintiff opposes the motions. On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice of service of amended verified discovery responses. 

 

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

  1. Meet and Confer 

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿  

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that Fairplex met the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).  

 

  1. Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) 

Per the Eight Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), 9E, “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.” Additionally, “Reserving or scheduling an IDC does not extend the time to file a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses.” (Ibid.) 

Here, the Court finds Fairplex complied with the Standing Order in scheduling and attending an IDC. The issues were unresolved. (Min. Order, May 6, 2024.)  

 

  1. Separate Statement 

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Fairplex properly filed separate statements for each motion to compel further. 

 

III. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 

  1. Legal Standard 

CCP § 2030.300(a) provides that on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:   

(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.    

 

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:    

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.  

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.  

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. 

 

  1. Discussion 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s amended verified responses to Fairplex’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs served on May 7, 2024. The Court finds that the amended responses to form interrogatories 6.4 and 12.1, and special interrogatories nos. 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 28 are not code compliant with CCP §2030.220. Further, Plaintiff’s amended response to RPD no. 15 is not code compliant with CCP §2031.230. 

Therefore, Fairplex’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED IN PART.¿Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified responses to Fairplex’s set one of discovery as to (1) form interrogatories 6.4 and 12.1, (2) special interrogatories nos. 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 28, and (3) RPD no. 15, within fifteen (15) days. 

 

IV. SANCTIONS 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response.  (CCP §2031.310(h).) 

Fairplex requests $1,215 for each motion. Plaintiff’s opposition notes that Defendant has not provided any support for the requested sum. Further, Defendant has not provided any additional information by way of a reply. Therefore, the request for sanctions is denied.  

 

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 17th day of May 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court