TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar:    6  

Date:          04/11/2025  

Case No: 24 NNCV06618 Trial Date:  None Set 

Case Name: Campos v. Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant Group, Inc., et al.  

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Moving Party:              Defendant Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant Group, Inc.     

Responding Party:   Plaintiff Karla Campos  

RELIEF REQUESTED:

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiff Karla Campos alleges that in March of 2023 defendants Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant Group, Inc. and SPB Hospitality, LLC negligently caused injuries to plaintiff when she slipped and fell as a result of dirty water on a slippery floor. 

Plaintiff alleges that the dirty water was leaking from the ceiling in the women’s restroom on defendants’ property, located in the food court, and that plaintiff sustained serious injuries and damages as a direct result of the negligence of defendants in installing, constructing, maintaining, inspecting, cleaning, mopping, managing, supervising or controlling the premises.   

The form complaint alleges causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. 

ANALYSIS:

Defendant Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant Group, Inc. (Gordon Biersch) seeks a protective order, arguing that the number of specially prepared interrogatories propounded on defendant is unwarranted.  

The notice of motion requests that the court also strike the special interrogatories (evidently all of them), as well as forty-five requests for admissions, and one hundred and two requests for production.  The moving papers, however, include no legal argument or authority cited under which relief can be granted with respect to discovery other than the special interrogatories. 

The notice cites only to CCP section 2030.090.  The memorandum cites only to CCP sections 2030.030 (a), 2030.030 (b), 2030.040 (a) and 2030.050, and, with respect to monetary sanctions, CCP sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 

There are no statutes cited permitting this court to issue a protective as to requests for admissions or document demands, and the court is aware of no statutory limitation on the number of document demands which can be propounded.  In any case, the court will not consider issuing a protective order with respect to any discovery other than the special interrogatories. 

Defendant here relies on CCP §§ 2030.090(a), which provides, in connection only with interrogatories: 

“When interrogatories have been propounded, the responding party, and any other party or affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” 

CCP § 2030.090(b) provides, in pertinent part:  

 “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: 

(1) That the set of interrogatories, or particular interrogatories in the set, need not be answered.

(2) That, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2030.050, the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted.”

With respect to protective orders generally, the burden of showing good cause is ordinarily on the party seeking the protective order. Beverly Hills Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court (1961, 2nd Dist.) 195 Cal.App. 2d 861, 866-867.   The granting of a protective order is within the discretion of the trial court.  Id.  The granting or denial of a protective order is reviewed for abuse of discretion.   See Meritplan Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 237, 242.  When the record shows facts on which the trial court exercised its discretion, this exercise will not be disturbed on appeal.  Foster v. Gillette Co. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 569, 578.

Defendant argues that where a responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the burden is on the propounding party to justify the number of interrogatories, in reliance on CCP section 2030.030. 

Under CCP section 2030.030(a)(1) a party may propound to another party “Thirty-five specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.”

Under subdivision (b), 

“Except as provided in Section 2030.070, no party shall, as a matter of right, propound to any other party more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories.”

CCP section 2030.040 permits the propounding of more than 35 special interrogatories with a supporting declaration:

“(a) Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order under Section 2030.090, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as described in Section 2030.050 may propound a greater number of specially prepared interrogatories to another party if this greater number is warranted because of any of the following:

(1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

(2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition.

(3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.

(b)   If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.”

(Emphasis added).

CCP section 2030.050 provides requirements for the declaration for additional discovery, requiring “a declaration containing substantially the following...” including paragraphs stating:

“4.   I have previously propounded a total of _______ interrogatories to this party, of which ______ interrogatories are not official form interrogatories….

 “8.  This number of questions is warranted under Section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure because __________ (Here state each factor described in Section 2030.040 that is relied on, as well as the reasons why any factor relied on is applicable to the instant lawsuit.)”

3. This set of interrogatories will cause the total number of specially prepared interrogatories propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed the number of specially prepared interrogatories permitted by Section 2030.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  

4. I have not previously propounded special interrogatories to this party. 

5. This set of interrogatories contains a total of one hundred twelve (112) specially prepared interrogatories. 

6. I am familiar with the case.  

7. I have personally examined each of the questions in this set of specially prepared interrogatories. 

8. This number of questions is warranted under Section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure as Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish notice, damages, causation, and the dangerousness of the condition through the gathering of evidence and written discovery is the most efficient and cheapest way to gather this information. 

9.  None of the questions in this set of interrogatories is being propounded for any improper purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to whom it is directed, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

[Ex. D, Declaration of Nima Shirazi, paras. 3-10]. 

Defendant argues that the declaration does not include factual support for additional discovery.  Defendant argues that this particular case does not warrant a number greater than thirty-five special interrogatories, since the issues presented in this case, and any potential future issues, are neither numerous nor complex.  Defendant argues that the court should protect defendant from the oppression, undue burden, and expense associated with responding to one-hundred twelve special interrogatories, and that plaintiff is propounding discovery solely to harass or impose undue burden and expense. 

More specifically, defendant argues that special interrogatories nos. 2, 5 and 6 ask defendant to state the exact time of the incident, how long plaintiff was in the subject premises prior to the incident, and how long after the incident plaintiff was in the subject premises, but that this information is equally available to plaintiff.  Defendant argues that plaintiff asks defendant to both state the “exact time” of an event, and in the preceding interrogatory to state the “approximate time” of an event, which are duplicative.  [Special Interrogatories Nos. 23 and 24].  Defendant argues that similar duplication appear in interrogatories in which plaintiff asks defendant to “identify all employees” that conducted an action, followed by “identify the employee that last” conducted the action, and finally asking “the first employee” that conducted the action.  [Special Interrogatories Nos. 28-30]. 

The declaration does consist of a statement of the statutory factors, including the  complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case, and the expedience of using this method of discovery, without supporting details.  

The fact that a plaintiff in a personal injury case has the burden of proving each element of negligence/liability is not unusual, so arguably would not alone warrant an exception to the limitation.

 Plaintiff in opposition argues that the Declaration for Additional Discovery complies with the statutory sections and sets forth the appropriate language for a declaration as set forth in the code sections.  Plaintiff also argues that the case is indeed complex and defendant is the sole source of information necessary to satisfy plaintiff’s burden of proof.  Plaintiff points to plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer letter in which it was argued that this case is not a simple slip and fall but involves allegations that the roof of the premises was defective, leading to a leaky ceiling permitting water to accumulate on the bathroom floor, and the failure to maintain a dry bathroom floor, as well as allegations that the walking space was inherently dangerous.   [See Cherkezian Decl., para. 7, Ex. 5].   

Plaintiff also argues that defendant has conceded that this case involves more complex and extensive issues, as the moving defendant has propounded discovery in this matter, including special interrogatories which exceeded the 35 interrogatory limit, supported by defendant’s declaration stating:

"The additional number of specially prepared interrogatories is warranted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.040 because complex issues of law and fact are present in this case and additional interrogatories are necessary to determine the bases of Plaintiffs claims for damages and the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged accident in the Complaint."

[Cherkezian Decl., para. 10, Ex. 8, Declaration of E. Susie Mendoza, Esq. in Support of Additional Discover, para. 6]. 

Moving defendant, based on this declaration, propounded 64 special interrogatories.  This declaration of defendant’s counsel appears to somewhat undermine defendant’s argument that the case does not present complex issues of law and fact.   

Plaintiff also argues that the complexity of the issues in this case is further supported by the fact that defendant in its answer asserted 27 affirmative defenses in its answer to the complaint.  The answer does in fact include 27 affirmative defenses, which would suggest that more than simple standard discovery would be required.  This argument would be stronger if the special interrogatories at issue had included contention interrogatories directed to each of those affirmative defenses, but the special interrogatories do not do so clearly. For example, the contention interrogatories at special interrogatories nos. 98 through 102, are directed to defendant’s denials, not to the affirmative defenses.  Nevertheless, the complexity of the case, and the factual inquiry required by plaintiff, is expanded by the assertion of so many affirmative defenses. 

Defendant also argues that this case is complicated by the fact that defendant is an entity, and one of two named defendants, and determining the entity’s responsibility with respect to the management of the premises should allow plaintiff to cast a wide discovery net to gain a clear picture of roles and responsibilities and the timing of its agents’ actions or awareness.  Indeed, the complaint here alleges that a dangerous condition of property had existed with the knowledge of defendants, and had existed for a sufficient length of time to place defendants on notice, such notice would have permitted the dangerous condition to be addressed, or to warn of the condition.  [Complaint, paras. GN-1, Prem.L-1].  The arguments made in the moving papers concerning the duplicative nature of a handful of the interrogatories which concern the times when events occurred. While these interrogatories do not show a strict duplication in discovery, they actually highlight that the interrogatories seek to pin down the time frame concerning maintenance, how long the condition had existed, and any actual or constructive notice on the part of moving defendant.  This information is most efficiently obtained by interrogatories, which impose on the responding party the obligation to review information and records and seek out and obtain precise information concerning details of the event, which would not be so appropriately discoverable, for example, through depositions.   

Overall, the special interrogatories propounded, the declaration of counsel for plaintiff attached to those interrogatories, as well as the arguments and evidence submitted with the opposition, meet propounding party’s burden of showing that the additional discovery is warranted in this case.  The additional number of interrogatories propounded here is significant, but a review of those interrogatories suggests that they do not appear to impose such a burden to give rise to a presumption that the discovery is propounded only to harass defendant. Plaintiff sufficiently has explained the need for the additional discovery, and the motion for a protective order is denied. 

Under CCP § 2030.090 (c):

“(c) If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the party provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on terms and conditions that are just.”

Both sides seek monetary sanctions.  CCP § 2030.090(d) provides:

 “The court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, 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.” 

Here, the motion for a protective order is denied. It has not been opposed unsuccessfully, so no sanctions are awarded to the moving party.  The motion has been pursued unsuccessfully, but the court finds that the number of additional interrogatories was sufficiently significant and the declaration for additional discovery sufficiently devoid of specific facts so that defendant was substantially justified in pursuing defendant’s position on this ground.  No sanctions are awarded. 

RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.   

Pursuant to CCP § 2030.090 (c), the Court orders that defendant Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant Group, Inc. serve verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff Karla Campos, for which a protective order was unsuccessfully sought, within thirty days. 

Requests for monetary sanctions by both sides are DENIED. 

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE 

VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances.  Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances.  Please note that in the case of video appearances, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. 

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.