Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV28399, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV28399 Hearing Date: September 23, 2024 Dept: 29
Landis v. Topanga Oil
22STCV28399
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Inspection of Defendant’s Premises
Tentative
The motion is denied.
Both parties’ requests for sanctions
are denied.
Background
On August 31,
2022, Plaintiff Jacqueline Landis (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this
action against Defendant Topanga Oil, Inc (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through
25. Plaintiffs asserts causes of action
for premises liability and negligence arising out of an incident in which,
Plaintiff alleges, she slipped, fell, and was seriously injured.
Defendant filed
an answer on October 6, 2022.
On
August 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed
the instant motion for an order compelling Defendant to allow the inspection of
its property. Plaintiff also requests
sanctions. Defendant filed an opposition
on September 10, along with its own request for sanctions. Plaintiff filed a reply on September 16.
Legal
Standard
“Any party may obtain discovery … by inspecting … documents, tangible
things, land or other property … in the possession, custody, or control of any other
party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a).) “A party may
demand that any other party allow the party making the demand, or someone
acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to enter on any land or other property
that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand
is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the
land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (d).)
The Civil Discovery Act contemplates three separate types of motions with
regard to requests for production or inspection.
First, a party must respond to a request for inspection or
production within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260,
subd.(a).) If a party does not provide a timely written response, the
requesting party may move for an order under Code of Civil Procedure section
2031.300 compelling an initial response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300,
subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses,
and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a
party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)
Second, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310,
when a response to a demand for
inspection or production is received, “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).)
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 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.)
Third, and finally, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, when
a party serves a response stating that it will comply with a request for an inspection
or production, but then fails to permit the inspection or make the production, “the
demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)
Discussion
On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff served a demand for inspection of the premises on
which the accident occurred, setting the date of the inspection for May 24,
2024. (De Soto Decl. ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)
Defendant responded the same day with a three-sentence email stating that
Defendant would not agree to the inspection.
(Id., ¶¶ 3-4 & Exh. B.) No other response to the inspection demand was
served. (Id., ¶ 5.)
On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant stating: “This
email will serve as confirmation that the inspection of the premises has been
taken off the calendar.” (Ahdoot Decl.,
¶ 6 & Exh. 1.)
Plaintiff now brings this motion, seeking “an Order compelling
[Defendant] to allow the inspection of its property.”
Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally flawed.
First, Plaintiff sent an email dated May 21, 2024, stating that the
inspection was “off calendar.” Although
it is not exactly clear what this means, it was at least reasonable for Defendant
to interpret the email as withdrawing the demand for inspection. As a result, no response to the demand was
required.
Second, and independent of the email dated May 21, 2024, Plaintiff is not
entitled to an order compelling Defendant to allow the inspection. Plaintiff served a demand for an
inspection. Defendant was required to
respond within 30 days. If Defendant failed
to respond, Plaintiff’s remedy was to seek an order compelling a response under
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.
And if Defendant responded with objections, Plaintiff’s remedy was to
seek an order compelling a further response under Code of Civil Procedure section
2031.310. An order compelling the
inspection is available under section 2031.320, but the conditions for such an
order are plainly not satisfied here.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied, as is Plaintiff’s request for
sanctions. (The motion is denied without
prejudice in the sense that Plaintiff may propound a new demand for inspection
and then, depending on the response of Defendant, seek appropriate relief.)
Defendant’s request for sanctions is also denied. Plaintiff may well have good cause to seek
the inspection. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s
procedural missteps, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s conduct is substantially
justified, and that it would be unjust to impose sanctions against Plaintiff
under these circumstances.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.
Plaintiff to give notice.