Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV19525, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19525    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 20, 2020, plaintiff Sylvia Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Smart & Final Stores, LLC (“Defendant”) (individually and erroneously sued as “Smart & Final, LLC”), alleging that she slipped and fell in the produce section of a store on February 11, 2019.  On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Demand for Production of Documents, Set Four.  Defendant’s responses were due on July 18, 2022, but were not served until the morning of July 19, 2022. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Defendant’s verified responses, without objections, to Demand for Production of Documents (Set 4) Nos. 109-115, and produce the responsive video surveillance footage   Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant and counsel of record. 

Plaintiff filed her motion on August 3, 2022.

The parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on November 15, 2022. 

On November 18, 2022, Defendant filed its opposition papers.

On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply brief. 

First and foremost, the Court considers whether Defendant has waived its right to assert objections by serving an untimely response.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 (a) provides that a party waives any objection to the demand if they fail to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection.  The Code also provides that “[t]he court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

No motion to relieve Defendant from its waiver of objections is on file.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has waived its right to assert any objections to the inspection demands at issue in this motion. 

Next, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause for the production of the requested video footage.  Plaintiff seeks video footage recorded by two surveillance cameras in the produce section during 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. each day on June 9 to June 13, 2022.  (DFP Nos. 109-113.)  Plaintiff claims that the video footage is relevant to prove that Defendant’s employees do not adhere to the inspection system Defendant has allegedly implemented, or that the inspection system is inadequate, because the policies and procedures have not changed even if the incident took place 3 years ago.  Plaintiff further claims that Defendant intentionally failed to preserve video footage from the date of her fall and that footage from the present day is relevant to determining issues of spoliation because Defendant contends that the surveillance cameras did not capture any footage of Plaintiff’s incident.  The Court agrees that the video footage is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling a further response to DFP Nos. 109-113 is GRANTED.

Last, the Court notes that Plaintiff also seeks a “schematic/layout” indicating the presence of all video surveillance cameras within the store on the date of the incident and at the present.  (DFP Nos. 114-115.)  Plaintiff has indicated that she is willing to enter into a protective order and argues that the layout will show whether other cameras will have captured footage of Plaintiff’s incident.  The Court notes that these requests are moot because Defendant has already produced responsive documents on September 8, 2022. 

Because Defendant opposed this motion with substantial justification, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.