Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: BC707741, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC707741    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: SEC

WATSON v. MAKITA U.S.A. INC.

CASE NO.: BC707741

HEARING:  09/15/22

JUDGE:  JOHN A. TORRIBIO

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set 6) is GRANTED.

Opposing Party to give notice.

Plaintiff BENJAMIN C. WATSON (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants MAKITA U.S.A., INC. (“Makita USA”); MAKITA CORPORATION of AMERICA; and MAKITA CORPORATION (“Makita Corp.”) (collectively “Defendants”) on May 24, 2018, asserting causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Strict Liability; and (3) Breach of Implied Warranty.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was injured on March 19, 2017 while using an angle grinder manufactured by Defendants. The angle grinder fell onto Plaintiff’s foot, causing injury. Plaintiff contends that the angle grinder contains various manufacturing, design, and failure to warn defects.

Plaintiff now moves to compel Makita Corporation’s further responses to RPD (set six) Nos. 325-328, 330-331, 341-342, and 346-353. Plaintiff contends that the documents sought herein are relevant because they are related to Makita USA’s defense that Plaintiff used the wrong wheel with the model 95557NB model grinder.

In Opposition, Makita USA argues that Plaintiff’s original inspection demands were irrelevant; Plaintiff unreasonably rejected Makita USA’s offer to compromise; Plaintiff’s requests for “wrong wheel” documents are vague and overbroad; Plaintiff knew there were different wheels for the grinder; Plaintiff’s failure to earlier pursue the wrong wheel issue reveals a motive of harassment; and the Motion was untimely under the previous trial date.

“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.” (CCP §2031.310(a).) A motion to compel further responses to a request for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP §2031.310(b).)

The Motion is GRANTED in part. Makita USA is ORDERED to produce further responses to each RPD identified and produce all responsive documents, excluding cases in which the operator put a circular saw blade on an angle grinder, by no later than 30 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Sanctions are DENIED. The requests, as drafted, are overbroad as to scope. Moreover, although Plaintiff technically complied with its obligation to meet and confer per Code, the Court does not find that Plaintiff engaged in good faith meet and confer efforts prior to resorting to motion practice.