Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01634, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01634    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 January 14, 2025

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   22TRCV01634

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Susan Udewitz; David Udewitz v. South Coast Botanic Garden Foundation, Inc., et al

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiffs, Susan Udewitz and David Udewitz

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:        Defendants, South Coast Botanic Garden Foundation, Inc. and County of Los Angeles

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        March 10, 2025

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Defendant, South Coast Botanic Garden Foundation, Inc. to Further Respond to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three

                                                (2) Plaintiffs’ Request for Monetary Sanctions        

                                                (3) SCBGF’s Request for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) DENIED.  However, if Plaintiff is willing to narrow the ambit of the requests such that only incident reports relating to slip or trip and fall incidents, the Court would reconsider the ruling.

                                                (2) DENIED.

                                                (3) DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff, Susan Udewitz and David Udewitz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, South Coast Botanic Garden Foundation, Inc, County of Los Angeles, and DOES 1 through 25. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Negligence; and (2) Loss of Consortium.

On August 23, 2024, Plaintiffs served upon Defendant South Coast Botanic Garden Foundation, Inc. (“SCBGF”), Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three. (Declaration of Tom H. Tavoularis II (“Tavoularis Decl.”), ¶ 2.) On October 8, 2024, SCBGF served its response. (Tavoularis Decl., ¶ 3.) However, Plaintiff argues that as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 28 and 29, Defendant SCBGF fails to provide responsive documents even though the scope of her requests have been narrowed. Because of this, Plaintiff has brought this Motion to Compel Further Discovery as to Requests for Production of Documents, Nos. 28 and 29.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

On November 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three. On December 23, 2024, Defendant SCBGF filed an opposition brief. On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿ 

¿ 

A.    Legal Standard

Responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).)  If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(b).)  “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).) 

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that” the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (Code of Civ. Proc. §¿2030.300(a).) Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response.  (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2030.300(c).) 

The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b).) Finally, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2)). 

B.    Discussion

                                     i.          Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three seeks further discovery production to Request No. 29. RFP No. 29 seeks: “ANY AND ALL INCIDENT REPORTS written/generated by an employee, within their course and scope of employment with South Coast Botanic Gardens located at 26300 Crenshaw Blvd., Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA, due to ANY AND ALL physical injuries sustained by ANY AND ALL members of the general public at the South Coast Botanic Garden located at 26300 Crenshaw Blvd., Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA between January 1, 2015 through January 1, 2024.”

            However, Plaintiffs subsequently stated that they were “willing to narrow the scope of the production request to only the incident reports that involve SCBG’s Promenade Path (aka Bubble Path) for the years requested.” (Moving Papers, p. 7.) Plaintiffs argue that this evidence is relevant because Plaintiff could learn about the Defendant’s use of any and all “incident reports” that pertain to the “Promenade” aka “Bubble Path” over a course of several years to see what, if any “NOTICE of dangerous conditions” have cause injury and what actions SCBGF took to remedy those dangerous conditions that caused injury to a member of the general public. The Court disagrees. Although the Court acknowledges that limiting the documents to only the “GLOW” event would be slightly restrictive, unless the Promenade Path did not exist until SCBGF started hosting the “GLOW” events, certainly “ANY AND ALL” incidents generally pertaining to the Promenade Path are quite overbroad and unlikely to lead to the production of relevant evidence.

            This case involves a single slip-and-fall incident. Requests seeking evidence of “ANY AND ALL” physical injuries has the possibility of encompassing incident reports of heart attacks, allergic reactions, or even bee stings, as argued by the opposition brief. The Court is unsure why Plaintiffs would not agree to limit the discovery to include slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall incidents only.  Thus, the Court DENIES the Motion to Compel. However, if Plaintiff is willing to narrow the ambit of the requests such that only incident reports relating to slip or trip and fall incidents in the three years preceding the subject incident, the Court would reconsider the tentative ruling.

                                   ii.          Sanctions

Both Plaintiffs and Defendant SCBGF have requested monetary sanctions. The Court DENIES sanctions as to both parties at this time.