Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 20STCV09554, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09554    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 May 4, 2023¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  20STCV09554

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Maria Lopez; Martin Gonzalez, et al.

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant, Matrix Service, Inc.

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Torrance Refinery (but no opposition filed) 

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        October 2, 2023

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) ARGUE what remains to be provided after the IDCs

                                                (2) ARGUE what remains to be provided after the IDCs

                                                (3) ARGUE what remains to be provided after the IDCs

¿¿ 

¿¿ 

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On March 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants, Matrix Service, Inc, Brandon K. Austin, PBF Energy limited, Christian Martin Gonzalez, a nominal defendant and a minor, through Sonia Jasmin Soto, his guardian. Defendant, Torrance Refining Company, LLC was also added to the FAC. On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s FAC states causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Strict Products Liability; and (3)Professional Negligence. Plaintiffs allege the following facts: This is action arises from an incident that occurred on July 11, 2019 at an oil refinery facility in Torrance, California. Plaintiffs’ son, decedent Gamaliel Gonzalez, was a part of an oil-tank repair crew performing welding activities and repairs to an oil tank. Decedent’s employer hired several outside companies to design, manufacture, produce, and deliver a large, heavy duty jack stand that was to be used by decedent and his crew. The jack stand malfunctioned and exploded and decedent was killed.

On July 15, 2020, Matrix propounded Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents to TORC. Matrix notes that on November 23, 2020, TORC provided unverified responses to such discovery requests. Matrix also notes that on January 12, 2021, Matrix sent TORC’s counsel a detailed meet and confer letter requesting that TORC provided code-compliant, verified responses to:

Form Interrogatories Nos.: 3.7, 12.2, and 12.3;

Special Interrogatories Nos.: 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15; and

Requests for Production of Documents Nos.: 9, 11, 16-21, 24-27, 32-33, and 35-55.

            The motions contend that from January 20, 2021 to the time the motions were filed in July of 2022, Matrix has not received the requested discovery despite offering numerous extensions, and has had to reach out when those extension deadlines were not met.  As of Matrix’s filing of these motions, they have yet to receive (1) further responses to the discovery at issue herein, (2) a verification to TORC’s original responses, (3) documents responsive to the requests that TORC agreed to produce, or (4) a privilege log that TORC agreed to produce. (See Watts Decl., ¶ 13.)  Accordingly, Matrix has brought these three Motions to Compel Further Discovery.

            The Court has conducted several informal discovery responses with counsel concerning these discovery responses and has narrowed the scope of the dispute.  As best the Court can recall, and in the absence of any written opposition by TORC or report by Matrix, Torrance Refinery claimed at the IDC to have produced over 1000 pages of documents and a privilege log in further response to the document demands, provided verifications for its Dec. 2020 production, but admitted it had not yet given any verification as of the January 23, 2023 IDC for its January 2023 further responses.  A second IDC was conducted and then a third, where Torrance Refinery’s counsel Ms. Wrighten advised she was attempting to resolve the remaining discovery issues before she withdrew from her law firm.  The Court’s notes indicate that as of the March 1, 2023 further IDC, there were only 4 remaining interrogatories remaining in dispute, 2 of which were form (including 15.1) and 2 of which were special (including no. 14). 

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On July 6, 2022, Matrix filed these Motions to Compel Further Discovery. To date, no opposition has been filed.

¿¿ 

¿II. MEET AND CONFER ¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

Based on the numerous attempts by Matrix’s counsel to meet and confer with TORC’s counsel, and the number of extensions Matrix has provided, Matrix has met its meet and confer requirements.

¿III. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿         While the discovery motions were pending, this case was reassigned to Inglewood Department 8 and the Judge there, Judge Frank, conducted 2-3 Informal Discovery Conferences that narrowed the number of disputed issues and that should have either mooted or largely resolved the discovery requests identified in the motions.  But the Court has had no written report from either side as to what specific discovery requests if any remain in dispute.  The Court will take oral argument as to which requests or interrogatories or verification issues have still not been rectified, or if the motions should have been taken off calendar.