Case Name: Li v. Cole Haan LLC
Case No.: 18CV328984

The following motions by plaintiff Lin Li (“Plaintiff”) are currently before the Court: (1) Motion for Issue of Evidentiary Sanctions or, in the Alternative, to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 2 and 3 from defendant Cole Haan, LLC (“Cole Haan” of “Defendant”); and (2) Motion for Issue or Evidentiary Sanctions with Regard to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

I. Background

A. Factual

This is a personal injury action arising out of an incident at the Cole Haan store at the Great Mall in Milpitas. According to the allegations of the complaint, Plaintiff was squatting and trying on shoes when an unsecured shoe box dislodged by another customer fell from the top of a high shelf and struck her in the head and lower back, injuring her. Plaintiff filed the complaint on May 29, 2018, asserting claims for premises liability and general negligence against Cole Haan.

B. Procedural (Discovery Dispute)

On May 28, 2019, the Court issued an order with respect to four different discovery motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) a motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (“FI”); (2) a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories; (3) a motion to compel further response to requests for admission (“RFA”); and (4) a motion to compel documents and supplemental document responses from Cole Haan. The motions were granted in part and denied in part. As relevant here, Cole Haan was ordered to provide further responses to RFA Nos. 2 and 3, having failed to unequivocally admit or deny the stated contentions, or explain why it could not admit or deny them. Cole Haan was further ordered to provide a further response to FI No. 17.1 with respect to RFA Nos. 2 and 3, if the responses to those requests were not unqualified admissions. Plaintiff’s accompanying requests for monetary sanctions were denied.

On June 13, 2019, Defendant served supplemental responses to RFA Nos. 2 and 3, but not to FI No. 17.1, which it did not believe was required based on its responses to the requests for admission. (Declaration of Heidi Adams in Support of Opposition to Motion for Issue/Evidentiary Sanctions (“Adams Decl.”), ¶ 3; Declaration of Heidi Adams in Support of Opposition to Motion for Issue or Evidentiary Sanctions Re: FI No. 17.1, ¶¶ 3, 4.) Believing that Defendant’s supplemental responses were “evasive” and therefore not compliant with the Court’s order, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Cole Haan’s counsel on June 20, 2019, requesting further responses. No further responses were provided, and thus on July 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motions for evidentiary/issue/monetary sanctions and/or further responses. Defendant opposes both motions and requests that the Court impose sanctions against Plaintiff for abuse of the discovery process.

II. Plaintiff’s Motions

A. Motion for Issue or Evidentiary Sanctions or, Alternatively, to Compel Further Responses to RFA Nos. 2 and 3

As stated above, it is Plaintiff’s position that Defendant’s supplemental responses to RFA Nos. 2 and 3 are still deficient and therefore fail to comply with the Court’s prior discovery order, entitling them to evidentiary or issue sanctions. Plaintiff maintains that after her counsel sent the June 20, 2019 meet and confer letter, Defendant’s counsel responded via email and indicated that it would amend its response. (Declaration of X. Young Lai in Support of Motion for Issue or Evidentiary Sanctions (RFA), ¶ 5). No amended responses were provided. Defendant argues that it never promised to provide a supplemental response but rather, because it believed its amended responses were sufficient, advised Plaintiff that its counsel would provide a response to the meet and confer letter. (Adams Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.)

Request for admission No. 2 asks Defendant to admit that when the subject incident occurred, a shoe box fell on Plaintiff’s head, while request No. 3 asks Defendant to admit that when the incident occurred, the shoe box was stacked on top of the shelves in the store. (Declaration of X. Young Lai, ¶ 3, Exhibit B). As a general matter, a response to a request for admission must contain either an answer or an objection to the particular request, and be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 2033.210, subd. (b) and 2033.220, subd (a).) Absent an objection, the response must contain one of the following: an admission; a denial; or a statement claiming an inability to admit or deny. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2033.240, subd. (a).) If a request is only partially true, the answer must “[a]dmit as much of the matter involved in the request as is true … or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).)

In its supplemental response to RFA No. 2, Cole Haan responded, “[o]n information and belief, admit that a shoe box fell on Plaintiff’s head.” (Declaration of X. Young Lai, ¶ 3, Exhibit B.) In its supplemental response to RFA No. 3, Defendant asserted various objections but then provided a substantive response, stating “[o]n information and belief, admit that [a] shoe box was stacked on the top of the shelves in the store.” (Id.) Plaintiff maintains that these responses are deficient because by qualifying the admissions based on “information and belief,” Defendant has failed to answer as “complete and straightforward” as possible as it is not clear what information Defendant is relying on to respond.

Plaintiff’s contentions are unavailing. There is nothing evasive or incomplete about Defendant’s responses to the RFAs at issue- Defendant admitted to both of contentions made in the requests. While there is authority which condemns denials based on information and belief, the Court is aware of no authority which provides as much for an admission. This makes sense because ultimately all that matters is that the contention in the request was admitted to. Unlike other forms of discovery, which seek to uncover information, requests for admission seek to eliminate the need for proof. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 401.) Because Defendant has admitted that the shoe box was stacked on the top shelf and that Plaintiff was struck in the head by that box when it fell, these are issues that will not have to be tried. (See Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 509.) Defendant explains that it answered on information and belief because no one from Cole Haan actually saw the incident and thus the only way for it to respond is based on Plaintiff’s own account of what happened. These answers are code-compliant, and thus Defendant properly complied with the Court’s order. Consequently, there is no basis to impose sanctions against Defendant or order further responses and Plaintiff’s motion must be DENIED.

B. Motion for Issue or Evidentiary Sanctions with Regard to Defendant’s Response to FI No. 17.1

FI No. 17.1 asks for all facts, witnesses and documents supporting the response to each request for admission that is not an unqualified admission. Here, because Defendant admitted the entirety of each of the RFAs at issue, no further responses to FI No. 17.1 are required and there is no basis to impose sanctions against Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

C. Requests for Sanctions

Both parties request monetary sanctions in their papers. As both of Plaintiff’s motions are denied, she is not entitled to recover such sanctions. Defendant requests that monetary sanctions be imposed against Plaintiff and her counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), which provides in pertinent part that, “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” Defendant contends that Plaintiff misused the discovery process by filing the instant motions, and requests that the Court impose sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amounts of $2,040 (motion re: RFAs) and $1,320 (motion re: FI). Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Given the fact that Defendant’s supplemental responses complied with the Court’s prior discovery order, the Court finds that Plaintiff was not substantially justified in filing the instant motions and therefore Defendant is entitled to sanctions. However, the Court also finds that the amount of sanctions requested by Defendant is excessive given the simplicity of the issues involved in the motions. Further, the Court does not award sanctions for anticipated time, and therefore the hours included by Defendant’s counsel for preparing for and attending the hearing on these matters are not compensable. The Court will award sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $500 and thus Defendant’s requests are GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s counsel shall pay the foregoing amount to counsel for Defendant within 20 calendar days of this order.