Case Number: BC576495 Hearing Date: May 09, 2016 Dept: 93

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
DEPARTMENT 93

EVELYN BADALIAN,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

99 CENTS ONLY STORES, LLC,

Defendant(s). Case No.: BC576495

Hearing Date: May 9, 2016

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION OF DEFENDANT 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, LLC TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

The Motion of defendant 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, LLC is GRANTED.

Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $600 jointly and severally against Plaintiff and her counsel of record to be paid within 15 days of notice.

BACKGROUND

This is a slip and fall case. Evelyn Badalian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on March 23, 2015 asserting causes of action for Premises Liability and Negligence against 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that on October 11, 2015 the property owned by Defendant at 24200 Lyons Avenue, Newhall, California.

The court has considered the motion, opposition and reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

“In accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, California courts have been broad-minded in determining whether discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 172; Pettie v. Superior Court, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d at p. 687.) As a practical matter, it is difficult to define at the discovery stage what evidence will be relevant at trial. Therefore, the party seeking discovery is entitled to substantial leeway. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 172.) Furthermore, California’s liberal approach to permissible discovery generally has led the courts to resolve any doubt in favor of permitting discovery. (Id. at p. 173.) In doing so, the courts have taken the view if an error is made in ruling on a discovery motion, it is better that it be made in favor of granting discovery of the non-discoverable rather than denying discovery of information vital to preparation or presentation of the party’s case or to efficacious settlement of the dispute.” Norton v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1761.

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” CCP § 2025.450(a)

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to answer deposition questions which Plaintiff’s counsel advised Plaintiff not to answer. On July 10, 2015, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for September 24, 2015. Further attempts were made for depositions on October 8, 2015, November 6, 2015 and February 3, 2016, the date on which the deposition finally occurred. Plaintiff’s counsel instructed Plaintiff not to answer any questions regarding the incident itself.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s objections were not grounds for instructing Plaintiff not to answer the question. Objections related to errors and irregularities not grounds to instruct a party not to answer, but objections as to relevancy or admissibility are considered “unnecessary”. CCP § 2025.460(c); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1014-15. The only objections that Plaintiff may have had grounds to allege would be ones related to privilege, which Plaintiff did not make. Id.
Plaintiff’s opposition is limited to complaints about Defendant’s compliance or agreement with meet and confer efforts. Plaintiff cites to no authority that would indicate that any such failures are grounds to deny a motion to compel.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel Plaintiff to answer deposition questions is GRANTED.

SANCTIONS

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Sanctions against the party with whom the deponent is affiliated are mandatory pursuant to CCP §2025.450(g). Defendant requests $937.50 for 3.5 hours spent corresponding with counsel and drafting the motion as well as 3 hours analyzing the opposition, drafting a reply and attendance at the hearing at a rate of $135/hr in addition to a $60 filing fee. The Court finds a more reasonable amount would be a total of 4 hours (1.5 hours for preparing the motion, 1 hour for preparing the reply and 1.5 hour for appearing at the hearing), plus the $60 filing fee. Accordingly, the court imposes sanctions in the amount of $$600 against Plaintiff and her counsel of record jointly and severally.

Dated: May 9, 2016

_______________________
Howard L. Halm
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court