Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21STCV31285, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31285 Hearing Date: January 17, 2023 Dept: W
DIANE BANCROFT
vs MCKENDRY DOOR SALES, INC., et al.
plaintiff
bancroft’s motion to compel defendant mckendry door sales, inc.’s further
responses to special interrogatories, set one
Date of Hearing: January
17, 2023 Trial
Date: N/A
Department: W Case
No.: 21STCV31285
Moving Party:
Plaintiff Diane Bancroft
Responding Party: Defendant
McKendry Door Sales, Inc.
BACKGROUND
This lawsuit arises out of a slip and
fall incident that occurred on August 27, 2019, at the State of California,
Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers Compensation’s parking
lot located at 6510 Van Nuys Blvd., Van Nuys, California. Plaintiff alleges in
the Complaint that she slipped and tripped on a bolt or other item while
walking in the parking lot of the subject premises during the course and scope of
her employment with the State of California, Department of Industrial
Relations, Division of Workers Compensation.
On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff Diane
Bancroft (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant McKendry Door Sales,
Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging a personal injury cause of action.
On November 28, 2022, Defendant filed a
cross-complaint against State of California for comparative indemnity,
declaratory relief, and contribution.
[Tentative] Ruling
Plaintiff
Bancroft’s Motion to Compel Defendant McKendry Door Sales, Inc.’s Further
Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED in part.
discussion
Plaintiff Diane Bancroft moves the
court for an order compelling Defendant McKendry Door Sales, Inc. to provide verified
substantive responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Nos. 8-34, 42-62,
and 73-78 (Set No. 1). Plaintiff additionally moves the court for an order
imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,660.00 against Defendant and
Defendant’s counsel Resnik & Louis, P.C., jointly and severally.
Meet and Confer
Defendant opposes the motion based on
Plaintiff’s alleged failure to properly meet and confer. Defendant contends Plaintiff’s
final meet and confer letter dated June 16, 2022 only specifically listed
Special Interrogatories Nos. 23 - 34. Plaintiff now, however, seeks further
responses to over 50 different special interrogatory responses despite making
no mention of these other special interrogatory responses in her June 16, 2022
meet and confer letter.
Upon review of the meet and confer
correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendant, the court finds Plaintiff
sufficiently met and conferred regarding each special interrogatory listed in
the motion to compel. The fact that the last letter did not mention all
interrogatories Plaintiff seeks further responses from does not mean Plaintiff
is precluded from moving to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories
Nos. 8-14, 15, 42-63 and 73-78.
Interrogatories Nos. 8-14
Interrogatories Nos. 8-14 pertain to
whether there were any bolts in Defendant’s possession while it was performing
work at the subject premises. Plaintiff argues Defendant’s objections that the
interrogatories are vague, ambiguous and overbroad are not well taken, as the
interrogatories are plainly clear on their face and narrowly tailored to the
time frame during which the work was being performed.
Defendant argues they have sufficiently
identified and produced schematics for the overhead door Defendant was hired to
install at Plaintiff’s place of employment. Specifically, Defendant provides pictures
of all the parts of the door along with the bolts used for the work. The court
finds Defendant’s responses evasive. The court agrees Plaintiff’s requests are
not as intelligible as they should be, but the spirit of the requests is clear
and simply providing the Cookson Preferred Door Solution Details as an exhibit
is an evasive response. The Cookson Preferred Door Solution Details does not
provide all the bolts that Defendant may have had with them at the time of
their work. If Defendant had absolutely no other bolts with them but the bolts
required to hang the Cookson door, Defendant must explicitly provide such
information.
Defendant further argues ‘walkway’ is
impermissibly broad as it is defined as the walkway from the parking lot to the
building located at 6150 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, CA 91401. The court
finds the term is sufficiently defined.
Accordingly, Defendant’s request to
compel further responses as to Interrogatories Nos. 8-14 is GRANTED.
Interrogatories Nos. 15-22
Interrogatories Nos. 15-22 specifically
relate to what bolts the defendant purchased in the three years prior to the
incident, in an effort to elicit evidence that the bolt found in the subject
area after Plaintiff’s fall was left there by Defendant.
In opposition, Defendant argues the
main objective in serving these interrogatories is to harass Defendant as they
would force Defendant to provide Plaintiff with the name of every client, every
job and including every door, fire door and other product that Defendant
installed at various sites over the past three years. The court agrees. The
interrogatories should be limited to the specific bolt Plaintiff slipped and
fell on in the walkway. Plaintiff can repropound discovery narrowing the type
of bolt to the three years prior. The court notes, however, Defendant’s other
objections are without merit.
Accordingly, Defendant’s request to
compel further responses as to Interrogatories Nos. 15-22 is DENIED.
Interrogatories Nos. 23-34
Interrogatories Nos. 23-34 relate to
any inspections Defendant performed of the subject WALKWAY where Plaintiff
slipped and fell, and where the subject bolt was found. Plaintiff argues Defendant
has evaded responding to these interrogatories, in that it has failed to indicate
whether or not it performed inspections of the walkway where Plaintiff alleges
she fell, and the details of such inspections if they in fact occurred.
Defendant must provide verified further answers which actually provide the information
requested by the interrogatories. If Defendant did not perform any inspections
of the actual walkway, then it must state as much unequivocally.
Defendant argues the interrogatories
list the wrong dates and again, the definition of WALKWAY is overbroad, vague,
ambiguous, and unintelligible. The court disagrees. Defendant’s responses are
evasive. As noted by Plaintiff, if Defendant did not perform any inspections of
the actual walkway, then it must state as much unequivocally. Moreover, if
Defendant was not at the premises during the dates Plaintiff provides,
Defendant can respond as such. Defendant cannot avoid responding by presenting
meritless objections.
Accordingly, Defendant’s request to
compel further responses as to Interrogatories Nos. 23-34 is GRANTED.
Interrogatories Nos. 42-62
Interrogatories Nos. 42-62 relate to
policies and procedures and customs and practices relating to inspecting and
removing debris from work areas, as well as measures taken to prevent
pedestrians who may be walking through work areas from tripping and falling on
such debris. Plaintiff argues Defendant’s objections are unmeritorious.
Again, the court finds Defendant’s objections
without merit. Defendant claims the interrogatories are vague, ambiguous, overbroad
as to “performed,” “WORK,” “WALKWAY,” “consider,” “prevention,” “pedestrian,” “slipping,”
“tripping,” “bolt,” “left on walkway.” However, the requests are not vague,
ambiguous, nor overbroad. This objection only works if the word is so ambiguous
“that the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply.” (Cembrook
v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 430.) These objections are
disingenuous. If Defendant’s contention is they were not doing any work on the
defined WALKWAY, they must respond as such.
Accordingly, Defendant’s request to
compel further responses as to Interrogatories Nos. 42-62 is GRANTED.
Interrogatories Nos. 73-78
Interrogatories Nos. 73-78 relate to
communications Defendant had internally, or with other persons or entities
regarding the cleanup of debris in the subject walkway.
Defendant argues these requests as phrased
assumes there was debris in the location where Defendant worked. Even so, after
asserting their objections, Defendant provided straight forward and direct
substantive responses to each of these interrogatories stating Defendant is
unaware of any communications.
The court agrees the way the interrogatories
are phrased includes an assumption there was debris at the premises. Plaintiff
can repropound discovery regarding any communications regarding debris that
does not assume facts not in evidence. The court notes, however, Defendant’s
other objections are without merit.
Accordingly, Defendant’s request to
compel further responses as to Interrogatories Nos. 73-78 is DENIED.
Sanctions
Plaintiff requests sanctions in the
amount of $3,660.00 against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel Resnik & Louis,
P.C., jointly and severally, on the grounds Plaintiff was forced to file this
instant motion due to Defendant’s failure to provide adequate responses.
In opposition, Defendant also seeks $1,110.00
in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff on the grounds Defendant was
substantially justified in opposing the motion as this motion can only be seen
as an attempt by Plaintiff to unduly burden Defendant, force Defendant to do
Plaintiff’s legwork, and spend an unreasonable amount of time locating evidence
that does not exist or is irrelevant to the issues of this lawsuit, as an attempt
to burden and harass Defendant.
Monetary sanctions are mandatory
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d), absent substantial
justification to the contrary. (See CCP § 2030.300(d).)
The court, finding a genuine dispute
between the parties, denies both parties’ request for sanctions.