Case Number: BC517371 Hearing Date: September 02, 2014 Dept: 92
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
Marina Sanchez.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
City of Commerce, et al.
Defendant(s).
Case No.: BC517371
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES RE. SPECIAL INTERRROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS
Dept. 92
11:00 am
September 2, 2014
I.
FACTS
Marina Sanchez (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint on August 6, 2013 alleging that on September 3, 2013 (“date of acccident”), slipped and fell around the pool area of a public pool owned and controlled by the City of Commerce (“defendant”). The complaint alleges the following causes of action against defendant: liability based on Government Code §§815.2(A) and 835. Other causes of action are alleged against Does 1 to 20.
Defendant filed its answer to the complaint on October 16, 2013.
Plaintiff filed the following discovery motions on January 2, 2014:
1. Motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories and request for sanctions.
2. Motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents.
Defendant filed its opposition to plaintiff’s motions on February 3, 2014.
Plaintiff filed its replies on February 6, 2014.
Defendant filed a supplemental declaration of Terri Brown in support of defendant’s oppositions on April 14, 2014.
II.
DISCUSSION
It is beyond any dispute that the scope of discovery is very broad in California, much broader than what is permitted at trial. California Code of Civil Procedure §2017.010 provides:
“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence…”
III.
Rulings
The court has read and considered all the papers and pleadings and rules as follows.
A. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories
#1 –The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (remedial measures) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#9 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (type of material of the floor) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant provided a response which is not evasive. The court cannot determine whether the response is incomplete. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order only if the current response given does not fairly and accurately describe the type of material around the area of the pool deck 1 meter diving board.
#13 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (has anyone slipped and fallen in the poll deck in the past 36 months) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete. Plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.”
#14 – Not applicable
#15 – Not applicable
#16 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (employees in the subject property) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order and to the names of employees who (1) were responsible tor the care/maintenance/cleaning/repair of the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and which was noted in defendant’s employee as the “area [that] was closed off”; (2) witnessed plaintiff’s fall which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#17 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (lifeguards) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#18 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (the manufacturer of the floor or the floor covering) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#19 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (the assembler of the floor or the floor covering) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#20 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (the installer of the floor or the floor covering) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#21 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (the person who installed the floor or the floor covering) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#31 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (has anyone slipped and fallen in the pool deck in the 48 months prior to the incident) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete. The interrogatory asks for a yes, no, or I don’t know answer. If the answer is “I don’t know” defendant shall comply with CCP§ 2031.220(c) in its response.
#32 – Not applicable
#33 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (other than plaintiff did anyone slip and fall on the pool deck) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#34 – Not applicable
#35 — The special interrogatory seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (has anyone slipped and fallen on the pool deck) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further interrogatory responses are limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
B. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to document requests
#2 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (documents relating to slip and falls in the property that is the subject of the incident) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where Plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#3 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (documents relating to complaints about the property that is the subject of the incident) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#4 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (documents relating to complaints made by employees about the property that is the subject of the incident) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#5 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (documents relating to to the amount of time the property was cleaned) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#8 – To the extent defendant asserts the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, defendant is ordered to comply with CCP §2031.240(c)(1) by providing a privilege log within 30 days of this order. Such privilege log shall identify the date of the document, the author(s), the recipient(s), and a general description of each document sufficient to enable plaintiff and the court to determine if the document is privileged and, if so, whether the privilege has been waived as to each such document(s).
#13 — To the extent defendant asserts the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, defendant is ordered to comply with CCP §2031.240(c)(1) by providing a privilege log within 30 days of this order. Such privilege log shall identify the date of the document, the author(s), the recipient(s), and a general description of each document sufficient to enable plaintiff and the court to determine if the document is privileged and, if so, whether the privilege has been waived as to each such document(s).
#14 — To the extent defendant asserts the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, defendant is ordered to comply with CCP §2031.240(c)(1) by providing a privilege log within 30 days of this order. Such privilege log shall identify the date of the document, the author(s), the recipient(s), and a general description of each document sufficient to enable plaintiff and the court to determine if the document is privileged and, if so, whether the privilege has been waived as to each such document(s).
#20 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (documents relating to the cleaning of the property) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#21 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (documents relating to whether employees were on duty) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete. The privacy objection is overruled. The request asks for documents relating to who was on duty and does not seek personal information.
#22 — To the extent defendant asserts the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, defendant is ordered to comply with CCP §2031.240(c)(1) by providing a privilege log within 30 days of this order. Such privilege log shall identify the date of the document, the author(s), the recipient(s), and a general description of each document sufficient to enable plaintiff and the court to determine if the document is privileged and, if so, whether the privilege has been waived as to each such document(s).
#24 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (documents relating to date, time, and nature of work performed) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#26 — To the extent defendant asserts the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, defendant is ordered to comply with CCP §2031.240(c)(1) by providing a privilege log within 30 days of this order. Such privilege log shall identify the date of the document, the author(s), the recipient(s), and a general description of each document sufficient to enable plaintiff and the court to determine if the document is privileged and, if so, whether the privilege has been waived as to each such document(s).
#27 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (copy or original of Incident report of any and all slip and falls) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#28 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (repair or maintenance work) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#29 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (repair or maintenance work done after the incident) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
#30 – This is duplicative of #29.
#38 — The document request seeks evidence relevant to the subject matter of the case (repair or maintenance work done after the incident) and it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A further response is limited to the period three years prior to the date of the accident to the date of this order. The property is defined as the area where plaintiff advised defendant’s employee of the specific location of her fall and the employee prepared an incident report describing the area of the fall (pool deck, 1 meter diving board) and noted in her report that the “area was closed off.” Further responses are due on or before 30 days of this order. The objections are overruled. The objections are evasive and the response is incomplete.
C. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions
The court must impose monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010 to 2023.040 against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to an inspection demand (or special interrogatories), unless the court finds that circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. Code Civ. Proc., §§2031.310(h), 2030.300(d).
Plaintiff seeks $2160 in connection with his motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories and $2160 in connection with his motion to compel further responses to plaintiff’s document requests. However, plaintiff does not specify the person against whom sanctions are sought.
CCP §2023.040 provides, “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Defendant’s notice of motion fails to identify the person, party, and/or attorney against whom sanctions are sought. The requests for sanctions are therefore denied.
Dated: September ___, 2014
Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court
Link to this page