Case Number: BC662904 Hearing Date: March 25, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

On January 23, 2019, Defendant filed motions to compel further responses to document requests and special interrogatories from Plaintiff. The Court rules on the disputed document requests and interrogatories as follows:

Document Requests

Nos. 18-25: The motion to compel is granted. The responses are not code-compliant as they does not state Plaintiff will produce documents in the demanded category in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken. They are boilerplate, not tailored to the requests, and do not make sense (a document request does not “call for a narrative,” it calls for the production of documents). Plaintiff is to produce all responsive documents and serve supplemental code-compliant responses. If Plaintiff is withholding any responsive documents based on the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, Plaintiff is to provide a privilege log.

No. 26: The motion to compel is granted. Plaintiff did not provide any response to this request. Plaintiff is to produce all responsive documents.

Special Interrogatories

The motion to compel is granted. The objections are not well-taken, boilerplate, and not tailored to the specific interrogatories. For example, Plaintiff objected that the interrogatories asking how Defendant violated the ADA and Health and Safety Code as alleged in the complaint, and for all facts supporting those contentions, are “irrelevant,” “improper, “burdensome,” and “harassing.” However, the fact that Plaintiff contends in her complaint that Defendant violated the ADA and Code makes the subjects relevant and the interrogatories asking for the facts supporting the contentions proper.

Interrogatory Nos. 33, 34, 36, 52, 54, 57 ask about violations of the ADA, as alleged in the complaint. The interrogatory responses are vague and do not provide complete information as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220. For example, Plaintiff responded Defendant violated sections 4.30 of the ADA. Section 4.30 sets detailed requirements for signage. Plaintiff responded that Defendant “failed to have proper signage to warn patrons of the dangerous condition.” This response does not identify which of the many signage provisions of the section 4.30 were violated and how.

Interrogatory No. 37 asks about violations of the Health and Safety Code. The response is inadequate. By using the term “inter alia” in Response No. 37, Plaintiff indicates that her list of violated code sections is incomplete. Plaintiff is to provide supplemental responses listing all code sections she contends Defendant violated.

Nos. 38, 39, 40, 55 ask how Defendant violated the Health and Safety Code sections and for facts supporting that contention. Plaintiff responded that Plaintiff slipped on a liquid that was a dangerous condition and Defendant failed to remedy or warn about the dangerous condition. However, many of the Health and Safety Code sections that Plaintiff contends Defendant violated do not concern floors, maintaining floors, or warning about dangerous conditions. For example, Plaintiff contends Defendant violated section 116064 and 17958.3. Those sections address public wading and swimming pools and residential hotels. Plaintiff’s response about slipping on liquid on the floor and the lack of a warning does not state how Defendant violated the sections about pools and hotels. Plaintiff is to provide supplemental responses giving facts as to how Defendant violated each of the Health and Safety Code sections Plaintiff identified as at issue, including sections 17000 – 19997, 57050, 57053, 13113.7, 17958.3, 116049.1, and 116064. If Plaintiff does not truly contend each of those sections were violated, Plaintiff is to identify the specific sections actually violated.

Nos. 42 through 46, 58, 60 ask about violations of OSHA, as alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff responded that Defendant violated OSHA language about what coefficient of friction is safe for patrons. Plaintiff does not identify the specific part of OSHA that Defendant allegedly violated. Plaintiff also contends Defendant violate OSHA by failing to have proper signage. Plaintiff does not identify the part of OSHA requiring signage. Nor does Plaintiff explain how Defendant’s floor violated the OSHA’s requirements concerning the proper coefficient of friction.

Nos. 47 through 50, 61, 63 ask about violations of other codes and ordinances, as alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff responded by referencing twenty chapters of the California Code of Regulations. If Plaintiff truly contends that Defendant is in violation of twenty chapters of regulations, Plaintiff must state facts explaining how Defendant violated all of those regulations. If Plaintiff does not allege such extensive violations, Plaintiff must state the specific regulations violated. Also, Plaintiff alleged Defendant violated Civil Code sections 1940-1954.05. These sections concern renting dwelling units, landlord tenant actions, the duties of a landlord in renting residential property, etc. If Plaintiff truly claims Defendant violated these sections, Plaintiff must state all facts explaining how Defendant violated these sections.

The motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiff is to serve verified, code-compliant supplemental responses, produce responsive documents, and provide a privilege log for any responsive documents being withheld as privilege within twenty days of the date of this order.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. Plaintiff appears to have chosen random statutes and regulations to list in its responses that have nothing to do with grocery store floors and warnings and did not explain how Defendant violated each of those statutes and regulations. Plaintiff gave no reason for identifying the litany of statutes and regulations and then not explaining how they each were violated. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $945.00 for five hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $165.00 and $120.00 in filing fees within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.