TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 2

Date: 1/6/2023

Case No: 20 STCV36297 Trial Date: September 18, 2023 

Case Name: Tate v. Langford, et al. 

DISCOVERY MOTIONS (5 Motions)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Gregory Tate  

Responding Party: Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail, Inc.  

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Requests for Production, Set Five

Order compelling defendant to provide verification to responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four

Order compelling defendant to provide verification to responses to Request for Production of Documents, 

Set Four 

Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three 

Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Gregory Tate alleges that he was injured when he was hired by defendants Clint Langford and Langford Installations as an independent contractor to finish a construction project involving placing decals on temporary barricades which had been erected around a construction site at premises in the Glendale Galleria mall, pursuant to which defendant Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. was constructing a restaurant within the premises cafeteria. It is alleged that defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc. owned, possessed, controlled, maintained and/or managed the Glendale Galleria mall, including the mall cafeteria. 

Plaintiff alleges that at the time Langford hired plaintiff to complete the job, the Langford defendants had discovered that the flooring at the premises was unsafe, and that placing a ladder on the flooring was unsafe, as the ladder would slip, but Langford did not indicate that the premises was unsafe in any way, but informed plaintiff that plaintiff could use his own ladder to perform the project.  Plaintiff alleges that he placed the ladder up against the Dunkin’s temporary barricade and climbed to the top to finish affixing the decal, and when he applied pressure to the decal, his ladder lost its grip, causing Tate to fall nearly 20 feet on to the tile flooring below, and suffer severe injury. 

The operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint, alleges causes of action for premises liability, negligence, and negligent hiring, supervision or retention of employee.  

ANALYSIS:

Compel Responses to Document Demands 

Under CCP § 2031.300, “if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it,” that party “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...”  Under subdivision (b), “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” 

In this case, a request for document production was directed to defendant Brookfield Properties, and defendant failed to serve timely responses.   Defendant in opposition indicates that the motion is now moot, as defendant served its response since the motion was filed.  The opposition attaches Response of Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail, Inc. to Fifth Request for Production of Documents, which was served on December 29, 2022.  The Response is not verified.   

Under CCP § 2031.250:

“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.”

The response includes general objections, but the specific response states, “The video is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’.”  

The responses, therefore, does not contain only objections, and is required to be verified.  Under the circumstances the court will not find that the motion is moot.  Plaintiff has accordingly appropriately moved for an order to compel responses.  Defendant has waived all objections and is ordered to respond.

Compel Verifications

Plaintiff brings two motions to compel defendant to serve verifications to discovery responses in connection with Special Interrogatories, Set Four and Request for Production of Documents, Set Four.

With respect to interrogatories, under plaintiff relies on CCP § 2030.210:

“(a) The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

  (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings.

  (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.”

 

CCP § 2030.250(a) provides that “The party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.”   As discussed above, a similar provision applies to document demands. 

CCP § 2031.250 (a).

Plaintiff argues that the failure to verify renders the responses no response at all. Plaintiff relies on Steven M. Garber & Associates v. Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 817, n. 4, in which the Second District noted that in connection with a further response which had been filed in response to interrogatories in that case, which contained objections and was not verified: Unverified responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.”  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [253 Cal.Rptr. 762].

Steven M. Garber, at 817, n. 4.  

Defendant indicates in the opposition that the motions must be denied as moot because defendant has served with the opposition the verifications to discovery.  The oppositions attach verifications, dated August 1, 2022, and served with the oppositions on December 29, 2022.  [Oppositions, Exs. A].  However, the 

the attached verifications are to discovery responses to “Set Three” of the various discovery requests, when the motions are directed to the responses to “Set Four.”  [Oppositions, Ex. A].  The responses do not consist entirely of objections and are required to be verified.  The motions are accordingly not moot, and the court orders that defendant serve verifications to the subject sets of discovery. 

Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and Document Demands 

Plaintiff seeks to compel defendant Brookfield Properties to serve further responses to plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three and plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set Three.  This same discovery was the subject of motions brought by plaintiff earlier and heard by this court on August 5, 2022.  

Plaintiff had brought two motions, one for responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Three) and Special Interrogatories (Set Three), and one for responses to requests for Production (Set Three).  The minute order indicates that the two motions were moot due to defendant filing oppositions stating that responses had been served on July 25, 2022.  The court awarded $1,800.00 in monetary sanctions in favor of plaintiff and against defendant.  

The current motions are confusing, as they appear to represent that no responses have been served to this discovery, but the court has previously found that responses were served, rendering the previous motions moot.  The separate statements then include “original responses,” to the subject discovery, and “further responses” to the discovery.  The original responses were evidently those served before the previous motions were filed, on May 17, 2022, but which were objection only responses and were not verified.  [See Ex. D].  The further responses are evidently those served on July 25, 2022.  [See Ex. H]. 

There are two oppositions filed, but they appear to both be oppositions to the motion to compel further responses to document demands.  The oppositions argue that the motion to compel further responses to the document demands is not timely, as not filed within 45 days of the service of yet further responses, evidently sent on September 15, 2022.   [Opposition, Ex. B].  

However, any September response was not a formal further response, and does not appear to have been verified.   It also does not appear from the copies of the July 25, 2022 responses attached to the current motions that those responses were verified.  

CCP § 2031.310(c) provides with respect to a motion to compel further responses to document demands:

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later late 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.” 

(emphasis added).

The documentation before the court indicates that there has been no verified or supplemental verified response served yet, to start the timeframe running.  In fact, it appears that in opposition to the motions for verifications above, defendant has conceded that verifications to the July 25, 2022 responses were not prepared until after those responses were served, and were inadvertently not served until the oppositions to the other motions were served on December 29, 2022. 

The motions accordingly are not denied as untimely. 

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  The section specifically provides that “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery may be obtained “of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

Interrogatories

CCP § 2030.300(a) provides that if the party propounding interrogatories deems that an objection “is without merit or too general” or that “an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete…the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response...”

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to discovery.  Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.  The granting or denial of a motion to compel is in the discretion of the trial court.  Coy, at 221-222.   A court should generally consider the following factors:

The relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings;

The likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery;

The burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought.

Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.

Interrogatories Nos. 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103

The motion seeks further responses to interrogatories calling for the location of each video camera located within the area where the accident occurred on the date of the accident, the number of video cameras which faced any portion of the mall’s Dunkin’ Donuts restaurant on that date, a description of the location of each video camera facing the restaurant, the number of cameras capturing footage of any portion of the restaurant, the location of such video cameras, whether defendant contends that defendant did not have any video cameras at the location on the date in question,   and the identification of facts and witnesses supporting such a contention, as well as identification of the entity or individual responsible for cameras at the mall. 

The further responses are objections that the interrogatories do not seek discoverable information, and seek disclosure of confidential and proprietary information, the disclosure of which could potentially lead to safety risks for mall patrons.  The response then states, “Responsive information, should it exist, will be provided subject to a protective order.”  

The interrogatories clearly call for discoverable information with respect to this matter, shifting the burden to defendant to justify any objections or failure to fully respond. 

Plaintiff argues that the parties have entered into the protective order as of August of 2022, and defendant has agreed to supplement responses, but has not yet done so.   

The objections asserted are primarily related to the absence of a protective order, so those objections are no longer justified.  

Moreover, to the extent the responses state that information will be provided “should it exist,” this is not an appropriate response to an interrogatory. 

Under CCP § 2030.220:

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.”

CCP § 2030.220 (c) further provides:

“(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

The responses are not complete and straightforward, and further code-complaint responses are ordered to be served. 

Moreover, to the extent contention interrogatories are at issue, CCP § 2030 .010(a) specifically permits the propounding of contention interrogatories:

“An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based.   An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or a contention that relates to fact or the application of law to facts, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation.”

As noted, there has been no separate opposition filed to this motion by defendant.  The arguments asserted in the opposition filed to the documents motion are an argument that the motions are untimely, discussed above, that meet and confer efforts were insufficient, and that the motions are moot due to the provision of a secure link including all responsive documentation.   

It does not appear that the meet and confer was insufficient, given the numerous attempts to obtain the information, and repeated failures of defendant to provide basis information or verifications.  Counsel indicates that there was specific mention of the inappropriateness of a response that information, “should it exist” will be provided.   

Defendant also seems to argue that all information has been provided so there is nothing more to compel.  However, defendant must so state in connection with each discovery request. 

Defendant has failed to justify any objections or failure to properly respond, and further responses are ordered to be served. 

Document Requests—Requests Nos. 62-77 

CCP § 2031.310 provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(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.”  

Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”  

The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery.   Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997, 2nd Dist.) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.   Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.   See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996, 2nd Dist.) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.

The requests seek documents supporting defendant’s contention that on the date of the incident the mall did not have any video cameras facing the front of the Dunkin’ Donuts restaurant, documents referred to in response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, a chart showing the location of video cameras, security and closed circuit television cameras on the first and second floors of the mall, a chart showing the location of such cameras facing the restaurant, documents sufficient to determine such camera locations, documents to determine such information concerning cameras capturing footage at the time, all non-privileged documents relating to any slip and fall or trip incidents at the mall from January 1, 2013 through January 1, 2014,  January 1, 2014 through January 1, 2015, January 1, 2015 through January 1, 2016, January 1, 2016 through January 1, 2017, January 1, 2017 through January 1, 2018, and January 1, 2018 through January 1, 2019.  

The responses are some variety of the responses made above, including that the information is not discoverable, and the requests seek proprietary information.  Some responses also state “Responsive documentation, should it exist, will be provided subject to a protective order.”  

Again, a protective order is now in place.  In addition, the information sought is discoverable, and is related to the issues in this lawsuit.  This showing shifts the burden to defendant to justify its objections and failure to fully respond.  

The opposition as noted above, argues that the motion is untimely, which argument has not been sufficiently supported, and that the motion is moot, given the provision of a secure link to responsive documents.  However, there is no showing that formal further responses to this discovery have been served which would comply with the code.   

Under CCP section 2031.210, a response shall either be a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection. 

With respect to a statement of compliance, CCP section 2031.220 requires:

“A statement that a party to whom an inspection demand has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being make will be included in the production.”

With respect to a statement of inability to comply, CCP section 2031.230 requires:

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonably inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.   This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.   The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

Defendant has failed to serve responses complying with the Code and is ordered to serve further responses to the subject discovery which fully comply with these sections. 

To the extent defendant’s response to the request for documents identified in Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is that no corresponding Requests for Admissions were served, the moving papers show that RFAs were in fact served, and defendant does not address this issue in the opposition or justify this position.  To the extent there are vague objections that the information sought is overly broad, defendant does not justify this objection in the opposition, or address it, and does not object that the requests are overly broad as to time, or that there are seven rooms full of these documents through which plaintiff would be required to cull.   See, eg. Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 313, 318 (demand held “oppressive” where declarations showed over 13,000 claims would have to be reviewed, requiring 5 adjusters working full time for six weeks each.).   

Defendant in opposition has failed to justify objections or the failure to comply with the Code, and the motion will be granted.  Defendant will be ordered to serve further responses to all of the subject discovery. 

Sanctions

This leaves the issue of monetary sanctions. 

No Responses—Documents

With respect to document demands, under CCP section 2031.300(c), “the court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling…” 

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuses of the discovery process include, “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §2023.030(a).  

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice.  Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.  

In this case, defendant failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery and plaintiff has provided evidence that plaintiff has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct.   The opposition argues that since the motion should be denied as moot, and substantive responses were served before the hearing, the court is not required to award sanctions, but an award would be discretionary.  However, the motion is not moot, due to defendant’s error, and even if the motion had been successfully mooted, defendant has failed to explain why defendant was substantially justified in delaying until after the motion was filed to at least attempt to serve appropriate responses.  Sanctions are awarded.  Plaintiff requests $465 for the preparation of the motion and filing fees (one hour at $400 per hour).  This amount is reasonable, and the opposition does not challenge the sum of sanctions sought. Sanctions are awarded in full as requested. 

With respect to the failure to provide verifications, the same section would apply to the motion to compel in connection with document demands, and similar provisions apply to motions to compel responses to interrogatories.  CCP section 2030.290.  Again, defendant has failed to provide verified responses as required, and made the motions necessary.   The oppositions argue that sanctions should not be awarded given that the motions have been mooted, when, again, they have not been mooted.  The oppositions also seem to argue that plaintiff could have avoided the need for these motions by communicating about the missing verifications.  However, as argued in the moving papers, with respect to motions to compel responses to discovery, there is no statutory meet and confer obligation.   

Again, defendant in the oppositions has failed to explain why defendant was substantially justified in delaying until after the motions were filed to at least attempt to serve appropriate verifications.  Sanctions will be awarded.  Plaintiff requests $465 for the preparation of each motion and filing fees (one hour at $400 per hour).  This amount is reasonable, and the opposition does not challenge the sums of sanctions sought. Sanctions will be awarded in full as requested. 

With respect to further responses to discovery, CCP § 2030.300 (d) provides that the court “shall impose a monetary sanction...against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”   A similar provision applies to motions to compel further responses to document demands.  CCP § 2031.310 (h).   

 

Under CCP § 2023.010, misuse of the discovery process includes “(e) making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery”; and “(f) making an evasive response to discovery.”  Where there has been a misuse of the discovery process, under Section 2023.030(a), the court “may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”

Again, the burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice.  Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436. 

Here, the responses served included objections which responding party has failed to justify, and evasive responses, and responding party has clearly made these motions necessary.  

The oppositions argue that the motions should be denied as moot, so that the sanctions are merely discretionary and should be denied, and sanctions awarded to defendant for the filing of the motions without properly meeting or conferring and for the filing of untimely motions.  These arguments are not availing, as discussed above.  Sanctions for the expense of bringing these motions are awarded. 

The sanctions sought are $1,660 for the motion for further responses to special interrogatories, and $3,860 for further responses to document requests.   

Defendant argues broadly that the sanctions requested are excessive in light of the work performed on the motion and the work anticipated for a reply. 

The motions required the preparation of detailed separate statements, and it does not appear that there will be any time savings based on mootness arguments.  Defendant requests time to travel to and attend the hearing for only the further documents motion, 3 hours at $400 per hour, which are reduced due to the availability of remote appearance.   The court awards reasonable sanctions, as follows:  $2,600.00 (6.0 hours] for attorneys’ fees plus the $60.00 filing fee.  The court awards no attorney time for travel to the courthouse because counsel can appear remotely.

No sanctions are awarded to defendant. 

RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery (Request for Production Set 5)

is GRANTED.

Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail, Inc. Set Five, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying, within 10 days.  

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party:  Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $400.00 (1.0 hours @ $400/hour) [1 hour requested] plus $65 cost and fees for filing motion [Amount Requested $465], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Gregory Tate, and against defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc., payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).  

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Verification to Responses to Discovery (Special Interrogatories Set 4) is GRANTED.   Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail, Inc. is ordered to serve a verified response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories to Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc., Set Four, within ten days. 

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party:  Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $400.00 (1.0 hours @ $400/hour) [1 hour requested] plus $65 cost and fees for filing motion [Amount Requested $465], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Gregory Tate, and against defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc., payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2030.290, 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).  

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Verification to Responses to Discovery (Request for Production Set 4) is GRANTED.  Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail, Inc. is ordered to serve a verified response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc., Set Four, within ten days. 

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party:  Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $400.00 (1.0 hours @ $400/hour) [1 hour requested] plus $65 cost and fees for filing motion [Amount Requested $465], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Gregory Tate, and against defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc., payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).  

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) is GRANTED.  

Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc. is ordered to serve further verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, Interrogatories Nos. 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, and 103 without objection.  The further responses must provide all information requested. All further responses are to fully comply with the requirements under the Discovery Act, including, under CCP § 2030.210 (a)(1) answers “containing the information sought to be discovered.”  The responding party must also comply fully with CCP § 2030.220:

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,600.00 (4.0 hours @ $400/hour) [4 hours requested] plus filing fees of $60  [Amount Requested $1,660], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Gregory Tate, and against defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc., payable within 30 days.  CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2023.010 (e) and (f), and 2023.030(a).

Monetary sanctions sought in the opposition are DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production (Set Three) is GRANTED.  

Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc. is ordered to serve further verified responses to Requests for Production, Set Three, Requests Nos. 62-77, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying of all responsive documents within ten days.   The further responses must fully comply with CCP §§  2031.210, 2031.220 and 2031.230, including for each request either 1) a statement that responding party will comply with the particular demand, including a statement that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiff and to which no objection is being make will be included in the production, or 2) a statement of inability to comply, which statement shall specify whether any inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party, and which sets forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.  Further responses are to be without objection, as defendant has failed to justify objections, and the Court finds the objections asserted to be without merit.   

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $2,600.00 (6.5 hours @ $400/hour) [9.5 hours requested] plus filing fees of $60  [Amount Requested $3,860], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Gregory Tate, and against defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc., payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2031.310(h), 2023.010 (e) and (f), and 2023.030(a).

Monetary sanctions sought in the opposition are DENIED. 

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO ADHERE TO HEALTH GUIDANCE THAT DICTATES SAFETY MEASURES, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearance. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear.  With respect to the wearing of face masks, Department D recognizes that currently, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health strongly recommends masks indoors, especially when interacting with individuals whose vaccination status is unknown; for individuals who have a health condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness; individuals who live with someone who is at higher risk; and for individuals who are around children who are not yet eligible for vaccines.  In accordance with this guidance, it is strongly recommended that anyone personally appearing in Department D wear a face mask.  The Department D Judge and court staff will continue to wear face masks.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.