Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV04488, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV04488 Hearing Date: November 8, 2024 Dept: 29
Babakitis v. Al Malaikah Auditorium
23STCV04488
Motion of Golden Voice, Auditorium, and AEG Presents to Compel Staff Pro to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Motion of Golden Voice, Auditorium, and AEG Presents to Compel Staff Pro to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Tentative
The Court will call this matter.
Background
On March 1, 2023, John William Babakitis (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against Al Malaikah Auditorium Company (“Auditorium”); The Anschutz Corporation; Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc.; AXS; Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc.; Staff Pro; and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for negligence and premises liability arising from an injury that occurred at a Judas Priest concert at the Shrine Auditorium on March 15, 2022, when an unidentified person gained access to the stage, jumped into the crowd, and struck Plaintiff.
On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff amended his complaint to name Goldenvoice LLC (“Goldenvoice”) as Doe 26.
On April 6, 2023, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed The Anschutz Corporation; Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc.; and AXS.
On May 4, 2023, Goldenvoice filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Staff Pro, Inc. dba Allied Universal Event Services (“Staff Pro”) and Roes 1 through 50. Goldenvoice subsequently filed an amended answer to the complaint.
On May 12, 2023, Auditorium filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against AXS; Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc.; Staff Pro; and Moes 1 through 50. On May 19, 2023, Auditorium filed an amended cross-complaint, this time against only Staff Pro and Moes 1 through 50. Auditorium subsequently filed an amended answer to the complaint.
On June 5, 2023, Staff Pro, Inc. (on its own behalf and as erroneously sued as Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc.) filed an answer to the complaint. On July 17, 2023, Staff Pro filed answers to the cross-complaints of Goldenvoice and Auditorium.
On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff amended his complaint to name AEG Presents LLC (“AEG Presents”) as Doe 1.
On November 22, 2023, AEG Presents filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Staff Pro and Zoes 1 through 50.
On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff amended his complaint to name A-One Security Services, Inc as Doe 51, and INEED Staffing Events LLC as Doe 52.
On May 29, 2024, Staff Pro filed an answer to the cross-complaint of AEG Presents. The same day, Staff Pro filed a cross-complaint against AEG Presents and Foes 1 through 50.
On June 28, 2024, AEG Presents filed an answer to Staff Pro’s cross-complaint.
On October 28, 2024, Staffpro filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint.
On August 13, 2024, Golden Voice, Auditorium, and AEG Presents filed these two discovery motions, seeking orders to compel Staff Pro to provide further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) and Special Interrogatories (Set One).
There is no indication in the Court file that any Informal Discovery Conference was held on this dispute.
No opposition has been filed.
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).)
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.)
“[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).)
Discussion
The Court will call this matter.
Conclusion
The Court will call this matter.