Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV20244, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20244    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff J.A.M. (a minor, individually and as Successor-In-Interest to the Estate of Decedent Michael McGarry, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Lindsey Mueller) filed a first amended complaint (”FAC”) against Defendants Preferred Express Towing and Recovery Inc., Mohammad Alqaza, NantMedia Holdings LLC (erroneously used as Nant Capital LLC dba Los Angeles Times), Atlas Capital Group LLC, Alameda & 8th Owner LLC, and Rudin Management Company Inc.

On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1 on Atlas Capital Group LLC (“Defendant”).  Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1 includes 138 special interrogatories.

On February 14, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for protective order, seeking an order that it need not answer Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1.

On February 28, 2023, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC with 30 days’ leave to amend.

A party may propound more than 35 special interrogatories if the greater number is warranted by the complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case, the financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition, or the expedience of using special interrogatories to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.040, subd. (a).)  Any party who has propounded more than 35 special interrogatories to any other party must attach to each set of those interrogatories a declaration stating why the number of questions is warranted and that none of the questions are being propounded for an improper purpose.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.050.)  The responding party may move for a protective order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subd. (a).)  “If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.040, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff’s counsel attached a declaration to Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1, stating:  “This is a wrongful death premises liability and negligent commercialization claim.  The additional questions are necessary due to the varied nature of the facts and legal matters at issue between the parties.  These include, but are not limited to, duties and responsibilities of G360 Security Personnel., investigations of G360 Security pertaining to services implicated by this litigation, policies, procedures, additional investigations, and evaluations implicated by this litigation, prior knowledge regarding substantially similar crimes and measures taken to reduce the risk of such events occurring at or near Defendant’s premises.”  (Foster Decl., Ex. B at p. 28, ¶ 9.)

With the opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel further declares that the special interrogatories are intended to “establish further evidence relating to negligent undertaking, foreseeability of criminal activities and to identify the relationship between the various premises defendants as it relates to the theories of liability underlying this wrongful death and survival action claim.”  (Hunter Decl. ¶ 3.)  The requested discovery “pertains to foundational issues regarding Plaintiff’s theory of liability, including but not limited to: (i) Defendant Atlas’ awareness of substantially similar crimes in the area as of the date of the incident (ii) failure to retain adequately trained security to deal with the foreseeable instance of having a victim of a crime come onto the premises (iii) the relationship between Atlas and the other premises defendants on the date of the incident, including Christopher Flynn who is a person with knowledge of relevant facts and an individual with a shared interest in multiple premises defendant (iv) the address and phone number of percipient witnesses, (v) the duties of the security guards at the time of the incident.”  (Hunter Decl. ¶ 4.)  The discovery also “pertains to foundational issues regarding potentially critical issues relating to foreseeability of crime, negligent security, negligent undertaking and the relationships existing between the premises defendants and Atlas on the date of the incident.”  (Hunter Decl. ¶ 6.)

Some of the special interrogatories (Special Rog Nos. 1-4, 7-15, 17, 19-44, 49-64, 69-125, 127-138) seek irrelevant information about the 8th & Alameda Studio Project.  No construction related to the 8th & Alameda Studio Project has commenced to date, and no construction took place at the time of the subject incident.  (Harris Decl. ¶ 6.)

Other interrogatories involve Defendant’s knowledge of criminal activity and the foreseeability of criminal activity, which generally could be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims regarding negligent control of the premises.  However, the special interrogatories are overbroad, vague, or ambiguous as currently drafted.

For example, Special Rog No. 133 asks, “As of November 15, 2020 were YOU aware that assaults with deadly weapons and shootings may occur at the PERIMETER of the 8th & ALAMEDA STUDIOS PROJECT?”  Special Rog Nos. 134-138 ask for additional information regarding Defendant’s knowledge of assaults with deadly weapons and shootings “at the PERIMETER.”  According to Plaintiff’s definitions, “The term ‘PERIMETER’ as used herein shall mean outside the property line.  (Forster Decl., Ex. B at p. 5, ¶ 18.)  This is therefore overbroad and requests Defendant’s knowledge of the possibility of assaults and shootings everywhere outside the property line.   Special Rog Nos. 76-87, 91-119, involving Defendant’s knowledge of G360 Security’s monitoring of “the PERIMETER,” are similarly overbroad.

Special Rog No. 127 asks, “As of November 15, 2020 were YOU aware that assaults with deadly weapons and shootings may occur NEAR the 8th & ALAMEDA STUDIOS PROJECT?”  Special Rog Nos. 128-132 request additional information related to Defendant’s knowledge of assaults and shootings “NEAR” the project and the subsequent steps that Defendant took to reduce the risk.  According to Plaintiff’s definitions, “The term ‘NEAR’ as used herein shall mean at, within, or to a short distance.”  (Foster Decl., Ex. B at p. 5, ¶ 25.)  These interrogatories are therefore vague and ambiguous as to the distance involved and scope of the requests.

Plaintiff also contends that Defendant is “withholding the identity of individuals with knowledge of the incident,” so “Plaintiff is unable to notice these depositions or interview these individuals to ascertain the extent of their knowledge.”  (Hunter Decl. ¶ 7; see id. ¶ 8.)  No special interrogatory clearly asks for the contact information of the two security guards employed by non-party G360 Security.

In sum, Plaintiff has not met his burden of justifying the number of interrogatories.

The motion for protective order is GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiff serving a new and more tailored Special Interrogatories, Set No. 2.

Defendant need not answer Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subd. (b)(1).)

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 30th day of March 2023