Case Number: BC703376 Hearing Date: September 09, 2019 Dept: 48

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUET FOR SANCTIONS;

(3) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; REQUST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: (1) – (3) Plaintiff Genoveva Cordes

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) – (3) Defendant Smart & Final Stores, LLC

PROOF OF SERVICE:

Correct Address: (1) – (3) Yes.
16/21 (CCP § 1005(b)): (1) – (3) OK. Served by mail on April 18, 2019; re-set for hearing on this date per July 16, 2019.

CONDITIONED UPON Plaintiff paying an additional $60 filing fee, GRANT motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 3.7, and DENY as to Form Interrogatory No. 4.2; GRANT motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 7 – 11, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20; GRANT request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,520.
DENY motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents Nos. 1 – 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28;
DENY motion to compel further responses to requests for admission Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and related Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

ANALYSIS

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories

This motion should have been filed as separate motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories and to compel further responses to special interrogatories. Plaintiff must pay an additional $60 filing fee in order for this order to take effect.

This motion was timely filed prior to the April 18, 2019 deadline agreed to by the parties in writing. See Mahsa Farid Declaration, ¶ 8; Exh. G thereto.

Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in sufficient meet and confer efforts prior to bringing this motion. See Farid Decl., ¶¶ 4 – 10; Exhs. C – G.

¿ Form Interrogatory No. 1.1: GRANT.

Defendant must identify the representative who provided the answers on behalf of Defendant to its attorneys.

u Form Interrogatory No. 3.7: GRANT.

Defendant’s objection is OVERRULED. Defendant’s license/registration status is relevant and the response simply states a legal conclusion.

u Form Interrogatory No. 4.2: DENY.

Defendant has represented that there is no statute requiring that it self-insure.

u Special Interrogatories No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: GRANT.

Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED as without merit.

Defendant has not demonstrated a serious intrusion upon privacy. In ruling upon a privacy objection in the contact of discovery, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552. The party asserting a privacy right must also establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances. Id. Further, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a threatened intrusion that is serious. Id. The Court need not proceed to the fourth step of balancing competing interests if all three of the above are not satisfied. Id. at 555. If the Court reaches the fourth step, the Court must balance these competing considerations: The party seeking information may raise whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves. Id. at 552. The party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. Id.

Disclosure can be subject to a protective order to the extent that hidden security cameras are identified and public disclosure would tip off potential wrongdoers.

As to responses Nos. 10 and 11, simply referring Plaintiff to Exh. A to the request for production of documents does not identify the number and location of the video surveillance cameras.

u Special Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 14: GRANT.

Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED as without merit.

Plaintiff may obtain the contact information of these persons in order to prepare to take their depositions as to the chain of custody of the videos. If these persons are not currently party-affiliated, then subpoenas would be required.

“ ‘Persons formerly affiliated with a party (e.g., former officers or employees) are not required to attend a deposition unless subpoenaed.’ (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, P 8:518, p. 8E-26.4.)” Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1398.

“Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. . . .” CCP § 2017.010.

“[A] percipient witness’s willingness to participate in civil discovery has never [*1252] been considered relevant—witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify whether they want to or not.” Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1251-52.

u Special Interrogatories Nos. 17, 18 and 20: GRANT.

Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED as without merit.

Plaintiff may obtain the contact information of these persons in order to prepare to take their depositions as to the chain of custody of the videos. If these persons are not currently party-affiliated, then subpoenas would be required. Plaintiff is entitled to learn who was responsible for the conditions which contributed to Plaintiff’s injury.

Further responses are due within 10 days.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Smart & Final Stores, LLC and its attorneys of records, Andrew J. Ulwelling and Wolfe & Wymann, LLP is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,520.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

This motion was timely filed prior to the April 18, 2019 deadline agreed to by the parties in writing. See Mahsa Farid Declaration, ¶ 8; Exh. G thereto.

Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in sufficient meet and confer efforts prior to bringing this motion. See Farid Decl., ¶¶ 4 – 10; Exhs. C – G.

u Requests for Production Nos. 1 – 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, and 28: DENY.

CCP § 2031.310(b)(1) requires that a motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224, overruled on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, n. 8.

Here, Plaintiff has ignored the requirement of making a fact-specific showing of good cause for each category of documents. It is not the Court’s job to articulate good cause on behalf of Plaintiff.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission

This motion was timely filed prior to the April 18, 2019 deadline agreed to by the parties in writing. See Mahsa Farid Declaration, ¶ 8; Exh. G thereto.

Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in sufficient meet and confer efforts prior to bringing this motion. See Farid Decl., ¶¶ 4 – 10; Exhs. C – G.

u Requests for Admission Nos. 1. 2, 3, 5: DENY.

The responses comply with CCP § 2033.220(c), which states:

(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.