Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV16372, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16372    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

MARSHALL KRUPP, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

KROENKE SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LLC, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV16372 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER   

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

April 11, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Marshall Krupp (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Kroenke Sports & Entertainment LLC, et al. for damages arising from a trip and fall at SoFi stadium.  

On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an order compelling defendant Stadco LA, LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents (“RPDs), sets one and two, as to requests nos. 2, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 23.  

In opposition, Defendant contends Plaintiff received all relevant documents requested at IDC, and that Plaintiff did not meet and confer about no. 23. Further, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely because Defendant served responses in January and September 2023, but the motion was not filed until March 2024. Defendant also contends Plaintiff did not provide sufficient notice of the motion. 

In reply, Plaintiff argues the parties participated in three IDCs, and the motion is not untimely because the parties had an agreement that they would exhaust the IDC process and meet and confer efforts prior to filing any motions to compel. Plaintiff contends that Defendant never raised an untimeliness issue at any of the three IDCs, and that Defendant stipulated to extend the time to bring the motions. 

 

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.)¿  

The Court finds that Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff complied with the Standing Order in scheduling and attending IDCs, in which the issues were not resolved.   

 

  1. Separate Statement 

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

 

  1. Timeliness 

CCP § 2031.310(d) provides that notice of a motion to compel further must be “given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”  

The parties dispute the 45-day timeliness of the motion. The Court reviewed the email correspondence exhibit attached to Plaintiff’s reply, which does not evince any agreement or stipulation to extend the statutory deadline. Defendant’s willingness to meet and confer, and to provide further responsive documents, does not equate to meeting the requirement of CCP § 2031.310(d) that a specific later date must be agreed upon in writing. Further, per the Eight Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), reserving or scheduling an IDC does not extend the time to file a motion to compel further, and the parties are expressly encouraged to stipulate for an extension of time. Thus, participation at IDC does not automatically extend any deadlines. The statute and Eight Amended Standing Order make it clear that a deadline extension must be expressly agreed upon by the parties.  

Thus, the Court then turns to timing of when Defendant served its verified response, or any supplemental verified response to determine timeliness. Plaintiff avers that Defendant subsequently responded to RPDs, set two, on September 6, 2023 but failed to produce any responsive documents. (Mot. Antunovich Decl. ¶ 6.) On November 16, 2023, Defendant produced some redacted documents. (Id. at ¶ 7.) On March 4, 2024, Defendant produced additional pages of heavily redacted documents. (Id. at ¶ 8.) The Court is unable to review the subsequently served documents Plaintiff attached as Exhibits E and F; the exhibits are black-colored pages. As a result, the Court is unclear as to whether the produced documents were provided as a supplemental verified response, but will operate under the assumption that it was produced in such a manner. 

According to the timeline provided by Defendant, Defendant served supplemental documents to requests nos. 2 and 8 in January 2024. Defendant does not give a specific day. However, even if it was served at the end of January 2024, the motion as to these requests would be untimely.  

Defendant provides that supplemental documents to request nos. 16-19 were produced on March 4, 2024. Supplemental verified responses reset the clock for a motion to compel further as to those specific responses supplemented. Therefore, the motion as to request nos. 16-19 are timely.  

 Defendant last served verified responses to no. 23 on September 6, 2023. Therefore, the motion as to this request is untimely.  

Accordingly, the Court will only address request nos. 16-19. 

 

III. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:  

(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.¿ 

The parties discussed the issue at IDC. Plaintiff’s request no. 16-19 seeks the following: 

 

No. 16: “Any and all DOCUMENTS REGARDING the lease of the real property located at 1001 Stadium Drive, Inglewood, CA 90301 on the date of the INCIDENT.” 

 

No. 17: “Any and all DOCUMENTS REGARDING the ownership of the real property located at 1001 Stadium Drive, Inglewood, CA 90301 on the date of the INCIDENT.” 

 

No. 18: “Any and all DOCUMENTS REGARDING agreements, contracts, rules, covenants and/or conditions between the tenant of the SUBJECT PREMISES and any other PERSON(S) existing on the date of the INCIDENT and concerning the SUBJECT PREMISES, including all contracts between YOU and any other defendant.” 

 

No. 19: “Any and all DOCUMENTS REGARDING agreements, contracts, rules, covenants and/or conditions between the owner of the SUBJECT PREMISES and any other PERSON(S) existing on the date of the INCIDENT and concerning the SUBJECT PREMISES, including all contracts between YOU and any other defendant.” 

 

The Court’s recollection is that over the course of several IDCs regarding these discovery issues, compliance with the requested discovery has been delayed at least in part due to defense counsel’s lack of participation in the IDC. On at least one occasion, defense counsel had an associate appear in his stead for the majority of the IDC. At the last IDC, defense counsel had not turned over the table of contents as previously discussed. At the conclusion of the IDC, the Court noted there was a reserved (not scheduled) date for a Motion to Compel Further Responses and continued the reservation to this hearing date. The Court thus anticipated a hearing based on the Defendant’s failure to turn over the table of contents. Because Defendant has now turned over the table of contents, and because the issues have been narrowed based on untimeliness, the Court believes that further discussion would be fruitful in order to clarify the state of discovery. The parties are ordered to further meet and confer, and to schedule an IDC if necessary, on the issue of requests for production 16-19. The Court will discuss the extension of the motion to compel further deadline at the hearing. Because the Court is concerned about continued delay of this matter, the Court will work with the parties to schedule an IDC, if necessary.   

 

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 10th day of April 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court