Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV01552, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01552    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On September 30, 2024, plaintiff Ahmad Heidari (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion seeking an order compelling defendant SWVP Warner Center Hotel, LLC (“SWVP”) to serve further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 36 through 42.

SWVP filed an opposition brief and responsive separate statement on February 24, 2025.

Plaintiff filed a reply brief and “reply separate statement” on February 28, 2025.

II.          DISCUSSION

RFP No. 36: All documents that refer or relate to any inspection of the Warner Center Marriott Hotel in connection with the purchase and sale of the Warner Center Marriott Hotel in 2018.

The objections on the grounds of undue burden and confidential business information are OVERRULED. SWVP makes no showing that confidential business information is involved or that searching and producing the requested documents would cause undue burden. Nevertheless, SWVP’s objection on the ground that the request is overbroad is SUSTAINED in part. Documents referring or relating to the inspections conducted in connection with the purchase and sale of the hotel in 2018 are discoverable only insofar as they refer or relate to the indoor pool deck and coping – as opposed to the entire hotel. SWVP’s unilateral condition of a stipulated protective order is also improper given that there is no showing that confidential information is at stake. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is only GRANTED IN PART as to RFP No. 36.

RFP No. 37: All documents that refer or relate to the purchase and sale of the Warner Center Marriott Hotel in 2018.

Like with RFP No. 36, the Court overrules SWVP’s objections based on undue burden and confidential business information. The Court also overrules the objection that the request is not particularized enough. However, the request is overbroad and therefore Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as to RFP No. 37 and SWVP must produce all documents referring or relating to the indoor pool deck and coping in connection with the purchase and sale of the hotel in 2018. Since there is no objection based on privilege, there is no need to provide a privilege log.

RFP No. 38: All documents that refer or relate to any representations made to any person regarding the indoor pool at the Warner Center Marriott Hotel in connection with the purchase and sale of the Warner Center Marriott Hotel in 2018.

The motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 38. SWVP’s objections are OVERRULED and a further response is required. Although SWVP claims that it is not in possession, custody or control of responsive documents, its statement that no such documents exist is incomplete because it does not state whether the documents “ha[ve] never existed, ha[ve] been destroyed, ha[ve] been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or ha[ve] never been, or [are] no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

RFP No. 39: All documents that refer or relate to permits sought by the Warner Center Marriott Hotel to perform any construction on the pool deck for the indoor pool at the hotel.

A further response is required because: (1) SWVP improperly limits the scope of documents to the date it purchased the hotel to the date of the underlying incident and (2) SWVP fails to identify the reason for its inability to comply with the RFP as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. The objections asserted based on scope and the availability of documents to the public are meritless and OVERRULED. Plaintiff correctly points out that documents created prior to the incident and SWVP’s acquisition of the hotel are relevant and determining whether SWVP possesses those documents is relevant to determining SWVP’s notice of any dangerous condition related to the pool. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 39.

RFP No. 40: All documents that refer or relate to permits obtained by the Warner Center Marriott Hotel to perform any construction on the pool deck for the indoor pool at the hotel.

The Court incorporates its discussion of RFP No. 39 and GRANTS the motion as to RFP No. 40

RFP No. 41: All documents that refer or relate to permits sought by the Warner Center Marriott Hotel to perform any construction on the pool coping for the indoor pool at the hotel.

The Court incorporates its discussion of RFP No. 39 and GRANTS the motion as to RFP No. 41

RFP No. 42: All documents that refer or relate to permits obtained by the Warner Center Marriott Hotel to perform any construction on the pool coping for the indoor pool at the hotel.

The Court incorporates its discussion of RFP No. 39 and GRANTS the motion as to RFP No. 42.

III.        CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 38 through 42 and GRANTED IN PART as to RFP Nos. 36 and 37 as outlined above.

As each party had meritorious reasons for bringing and opposing this motion, their requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 7th day of March 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.