DARREN MICHAEL YOUNG VS NORMAN THEUERKORN, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******7260    Hearing Date: April 21, 2021    Dept: 39

Darren Michael Young v. Norman Theuerkorn, et al.

Case No. *******7260

Motions to Compel Further Responses

Plaintiff Darren Michael Young (“Plaintiff”) filed this action after he was assaulted by Norman Theuerkorn in a nightclub owned and operated by HH Blind Dragon, LLC and Innovative Dining Group LLP (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff now seeks to compel further responses to certain Special Interrogatories, Set Two from Defendants. Plaintiff seeks three categories of information. First, Plaintiff seeks to learn the amount of money earned in total during the relevant time period. Second, Plaintiff seeks to learn the amount of money earned from alcohol sales during the relevant time period. Third, Plaintiff seeks to learn the amount of money earned in total from entry fees during the relevant time period.

As an initial matter, Defendants argue that the Court should deny the motions for failure to schedule an informal discovery conference. These motions were filed before Judge Goorvitch was assigned to Department #39, so the current requirements were not in place at that time. Putting that aside, the Court would excuse the IDC requirement in this case since it is clear that no compromise would be reached given the nature of the dispute.

The Court denies the motions to compel further responses with respect to the first and second categories of information. Although information concerning Norman Theuerkorn’s alcohol consumption may be discoverable, the requested information is too remote and speculative to reach this issue. Simply, the amount of money earned in total, and the amount of money earned from alcohol sales, do not reach this dispositive issue. Based upon the foregoing, the Court denies the motions as they relate Requests for Production #57 to #64.

The Court grants the motions as they relate to information concerning the amount of entry fees earned during the relevant time period. The number of people in the nightclub may be relevant to whether Defendants were negligent, i.e., whether they had sufficient staff on hand to address issues like the one raised in the complaint. Presumably, Plaintiff knows the amount of the entry fee since he paid it himself, allowing him to determine the number of people who entered the nightclub based upon the total entry fees during the relevant time period. Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants the motions as they relate to Requests for Production #65 to #68. However, if Defendants do not keep records of their entry fees based upon the dates and/or times referenced in Plaintiff’s requests (e.g., between 8 p.m. and 12 a.m. and between 12 a.m. and 2 a.m.), they may not be able to respond to these Special Interrogatories.

The Court declines to award sanctions to either side, as an award to either side would be unjust. Defendants shall provide verified responses, to the extent possible, without objections to Request for Production #65 to #68 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.