Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV16157, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV16157, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16157 Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two)

Tentative

The Court will hear from counsel.

In addition to other issues that counsel may wish to address, the Court would like to hear from counsel on the following issue: were Plaintiff’s further responses to the discovery (served on or about February 23, 2024) signed by counsel and verified by Plaintiff?

The Court’s tentative ruling is that the motions are granted in part and denied in part.

Background

This matter arises from an alleged slip and fall on May 18, 2020, at an Albertson’s store on Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles. On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff Anthony Renee Beamon (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Albertsons Safeway, LLC, Albertson’s LLC, Manager Precious, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.

On August 10, 2022, Defendant Albertsons LLC (erroneously sued as Albertsons Safeway, LLC and as Albertson’s LLC) (“Defendant”) filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On February 20, 2024, Defendant filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against Source Refrigeration and HVAC, Inc., Coolsys, Inc., and Roes 1 through 10.

As it relates to the matters set for hearing on March 26, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery on September 12, 2023, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two). (Johnson Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 1.) Plaintiff requested, and Defendant granted, a series of extensions of time to respond to the discovery, up to November 14, 2023. (Id., ¶¶ 4-6 & Exhs. 2-4.) Plaintiff still failed to serve timely responses to the discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 7.)

On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff served responses. (Id., ¶ 7 & Exhs. 5.) Defendant contends that these responses are not code compliant. Following additional correspondence, the dispute was not resolved.

On January 30, 2024, Defendant filed these two motions: a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two). Defendant also requests sanctions in both motions. Plaintiff filed oppositions on March 13, and Defendant filed replies on March 19.

While the motion was pending, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to the discovery requests.

Legal Standard

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

A motion to compel further responses must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery and must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1)-(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that any person “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.” A “misuse of the discovery process” includes (among other things) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to a discovery request; disobeying a court order to provide discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(h).)

Discussion

In its motions, Defendant moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 13-24, 27-28, 30, 32, 34-37, 40-51, 58-62, 65, 67, 73-79, 85-90, 98-99, 115, and 116 and to Requests for Production Nos. 26-29, 36-44, 46, 48-53, 58, 60, 61, 67, and 68.

While these motions were pending, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to the discovery requests.

In its reply papers, Defendant contends that even as supplemented, the following discovery responses are not code compliant: Special Interrogatories Nos. 13, 22, 36, 40, 46, 49-51, 58-62, 74, and 115, and Requests for Production Nos. 29, 37-40, 41, 44, 49, and 61. The Court proceeds based on the assumption that it is only as to these discovery requests for which a ruling is sought.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 22, 40, 46

These responses are factual and code compliant. The motion to compel is denied.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 36, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 74, 115.

These responses are not complete, straightforward, sufficient, or code compliant. The motion to compel is granted.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 49-51

These responses, in which Plaintiff states that he does not have knowledge sufficient to respond, are code compliant. The motion to compel is denied.

Request for Production Nos. 29, 40, 41, 44, 49, 61

These responses are complete and code compliant: Plaintiff states that he has produced all responsive documents. The motion to compel is denied.

Request for Production Nos. 37, 38, 39

These responses, in which Plaintiff states that he is unable to comply, are not code compliant. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320). The motion to compel is granted.

Sanctions

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are granted in part. Taking into consideration all of the relevant fact and circumstances, including that the motions to compel are granted in part and denied in part, and the economies of scale associated with preparing parallel motions, the Court sets sanctions on the motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories in the amount of $810, calculated based on three hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $250 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee, and sets sanctions on the motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories in the amount of $560, calculated based on two hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $250 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee,.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified, written, code compliant responses, without objection to Special Interrogatories Nos. 36, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 74, and 115 within 21 days of notice of the ruling.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified, written, code compliant responses, without objection to Requests for Production Nos. 37, 38, and 39 within 21 days of notice of the ruling.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and counsel of record the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant under the Civil Discovery Act in the total amount of $1,370 within 30 days of notice of the ruling.

The Court DENIES the motions in all other respects.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.