18CV328984
Lin Li vs Cole Haan LLC et al

MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS:

1. Part of this motion seems moot, in light of Cole Haan’s counsel’s representation that nothing has been withheld for RFPs 1 and 2.

2. As for the video, plaintiff’s counsel states that the video clip provided by Cole Haan does not show plaintiff or the area in question where the accident occurred. If this is the only video Cole Haan has that is potentially responsive, Cole Haan must provide to plaintiff within 20 days of this order a declaration from a knowledgeable witness to that effect; otherwise, Cole Haan must produce a more responsive video clip within 20 days of this order.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (“FI”):

1. Cole Haan’s response to FI 15.1 is fine. Right now, Cole Haan has no facts to support the affirmative defenses in question, and cannot truly assert those defenses until it supplements this response with specific facts. Therefore, the Court sees no prejudice to plaintiff at this time from this response.

2. Cole Haan’s response to FI 17.1 is improper with regard to RFAs 2 and 3. For RFAs 2 or 3, Cole Haan needs to admit or deny all or part of the contention, or explain why it cannot admit or deny the contention. It is improper to “admit” that plaintiff “alleged” something. That is meaningless and unhelpful, and certainly not “complete and straightforward” under CCP § 2023.220. Cole Haan must provide straightforward supplemental responses within 20 days of this order.

3. Cole Haan’s response to FI 17.1 is fine with regard to RFAs 3 and 6. If Cole Haan says there are no witnesses and no documents, plaintiff must live with those answers (and potentially prove them wrong down the road).

4. As no documents and no information seems to have been withheld by Cole Haan based on its attorney work product doctrine (“AWP”) and attorney client privilege (“ACP”), the Court sees no prejudice to plaintiff from Cole Haan’s assertions relating to AWP and ACP in its answer to FI 17.1.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (“SI”):
1. Cole Haan’s responses to SI 23 and 25 are fine. Unlike Deyo v. Kilbourne (1984), 84 Cal. App.3d 771, Cole Haan identified specific documents that help respond to the interrogatories; Cole Haan did not identify a “mass” of documents.

2. Cole Haan’s response to SI 29 is fine. If plaintiff disagrees with the identified documents’ relevance, it can probe this more during deposition or through other discovery devices.

3. Cole Haan must supplement its response to SI 28 within 20 days of this order, as its reading of the SI was somewhat disingenuous. If there were multiple persons who authorized the method of stacking, then Cole Haan must say so. If the method of stacking was authorized by a company policy or procedure, Cole Haan must identify, to the best of its ability, who wrote the policy or procedure.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (RFA):

1. As stated above, for RFAs 2 or 3, Cole Haan needs to admit or deny all or part of the contention, or explain why it cannot admit or deny the contention. It is improper to “admit” that plaintiff “alleged” something. That is meaningless and unhelpful, and certainly not “complete and straightforward” under CCP § 2023.220. Cole Haan must provide straightforward supplemental responses within 20 days of this order.

2. For RFA 6, Cole Haan need not supplement its response. Even if its objection to “safety device” were improper, Cole Haan went on to answer the RFA. If it turns out that Cole Haan possessed the requisite knowledge to properly answer the RFA but didn’t, plaintiff can seek recourse at that time.

MONETARY SANCTIONS:

While not all of Cole Haan’s arguments were justified, many of them were. The Court therefore finds substantial justification, when taken as a whole, for Cole Haan’s arguments. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.