Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: BC707741, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC707741    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: SEC

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

CASE NO.: BC707741

HEARING:  09/22/22

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

     I.        Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admission (set two) is GRANTED.

    II.        Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set three) is GRANTED.

Moving 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.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions (set two)

Plaintiff moves to compel Makita Corporation’s further responses to RFA Nos. 53-58. Plaintiff contends that the requests at issue 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 Declaration for Additional Discovery fails to comply with CCP §§2033.040 and 2033.050 because it does not explain why more than 35 RFAs is required.

The Court waives the procedural defect. The Court accepts Attorney Kasparian’s explanation (as an officer of the Court) indicating that the Declaration contains an inadvertent “typo” by limiting the RFAs to issues related to personal jurisdiction.

On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (CCP §2033.2690(a).)

On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (CCP §2033.2690(a).)

The Motion is GRANTED. On the merits, the RFAs at issue are relevant, and Makita USA’s procedural and boilerplate responses are insufficient.

Makita USA is ORDERED to provide further responses by no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set three)

“If the propounding party, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is…incomplete…or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response.” (CCP §2030.300(a).)

Plaintiff moves to compel Makita USA’s further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 53-58, which correspond with RFA No. 17.1

In Opposition, Makita USA reiterates its arguments raised in Opposition to the Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFAs—that the Declaration for Additional Discovery is not code-compliant.

For the reasons articulated above, the Motion is GRANTED in full.

Makita USA is ORDERED to provide further responses by no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for Sanctions is DENIED. Given the procedural error contained in the Declaration for Additional Discovery, the Court does not find that sanctions are warranted.

Makita USA’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.