This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 10:13:38 (UTC).

DEBORAH CANTER VS GLASSICAL CREATIONS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/05/2017 DEBORAH CANTER filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against GLASSICAL CREATIONS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ, DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN and MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6797

  • Filing Date:

    04/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN

MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CANTER DEBORAH

Defendants and Respondents

HUI JOHN

TSENG KUAN SHONG STEVE

HSIEH NANCY

KNAPE & VOGT MANUFACTURING COMPANY

RUBBERMAID INCORPORATED

GLASSICAL CREATIONS INCORPORATION

DOES 1 TO 100

HUI LAP SHUN

GLASSICAL CREATIONS INC.

CHEN FIFUANG

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

IRONS ALEXANDRA M. ESQ.

BAKER ORING & INFERRERA LAW O/O

BAKER & ORING LLP LAW OFFICES OF

BAKER AND JACOBS

IRONS ALEXANDRA MARIE

MCELROY STEPHEN KELLY

ORING MARK HOWARD

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WEINER MARK R. & ASSOCIATES

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES

SKANE WILCOX LLP

HURWITZ SHELLEY GERSHON

WILCOX WENDY LEIGH

WEINER MARK R.

LANE SUSAN

 

Court Documents

Order

6/20/2019: Order

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/26/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Legacy Document

5/19/2017: Legacy Document

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/27/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Legacy Document

8/1/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

8/4/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

8/30/2017: Legacy Document

Case Management Statement

10/4/2017: Case Management Statement

Substitution of Attorney

6/13/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Unknown

7/18/2018: Unknown

Substitution of Attorney

7/18/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

11/9/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Reply

1/24/2019: Reply

Separate Statement

1/29/2019: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

1/29/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Reply

4/12/2019: Reply

Notice

4/19/2019: Notice

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)

7/28/2017: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)

101 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/12/2019
  • Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department B at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department B at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketGeneral Denial; Filed by Fifuang Chen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department B; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by DEBORAH CANTER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference and Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • DocketOrder (Granting Plaintiff?s Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial); Filed by DEBORAH CANTER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (to Continue Trial); Filed by DEBORAH CANTER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by DEBORAH CANTER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
150 More Docket Entries
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by DEBORAH CANTER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by DEBORAH CANTER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1. PREMISES LIABILITY BASED ON NEGLIGENT INSTALLATION ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC656797    Hearing Date: November 08, 2019    Dept: NCB

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

deborah canter,

Plaintiff,

v.

glassical creations, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC656797

Hearing Date: November 8, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for protective order as to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories

BACKGROUND

  1. Allegations

    In this action, Plaintiff Deborah Canter (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she suffered injury when the shelving unit in her closet collapsed and struck her. The subject incident occurred on April 8, 2015. She alleges that the shelves were negligently installed on the premises. Defendants Glassical Creations, Inc. (“GCI”), Lap Shun Hui aka John Hui (“Hui”), and Vernon M. Lee (“Lee”) (collectively, “GCI Defendants”) are the alleged owners of the premises located at 1510 La Loma Road, Pasadena, CA 91105 where the incident occurred. Defendants Rubbermaid, Inc. (“Rubbermaid”) and Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company (“Knape”) allegedly designed, manufactured, supplied, and sold the shelving system.

    The complaint, filed April 5, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) premises liability based on negligent installation against GCI Defendants; (2) premises liability against GCI Defendants; (3) premises liability based on landlord’s duty against GCI Defendants; (4) product liability based on strict liability against Rubbermaid, Knape, and GCI; and (5) product liability based on negligence against Rubbermaid, Knape, and GCI.

  2. Motion for Protective Order

    On October 11, 2019, Defendants Glassical Creations, Inc. (“GCI”) filed a motion for protective order as to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories (set four) (“SROG”) propounded on GCI on September 10, 2019.

    On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. GCI filed a reply brief on November 1, 2019.

    There is no trial currently set. A Trial Setting Conference is set for November 12, 2019.

    LEGAL STANDARD

    A party may propound 35 specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter in the pending action. (CCP §2030.030(a)(1).) A party propounding more than 35 SROGs to another party shall attach to each set of SROGs a declaration pursuant to CCP §2030.050. However, the responding party may move for a protective order where the number of SROGs is unwarranted, contrary to the representation of the section 2030.050 declaration. (CCP §2030.090(b)(2).) When the responding party moves for a protective order on the ground that the number of SROG is unwarranted, the burden is on the propounding party to prove that the number of SROGs is justified. (CCP §2030.040(b).)

    DISCUSSION

    GCI seeks an order that it need only answer SROG nos. 1-17, so that the total number of SROGs propounded by Plaintiff on GCI is 35. GCI argues that the balance of the SROGs in set four seek to invade attorney work product doctrine and would cause GCI to suffer unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, and/or undue burden and expense.

    In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she does not seek attorney work-product doctrine and that the information would, at most, only qualify for qualified protection. The subject issue arises from a 34-page Insurance Services Office (ISO) report, which collected loss data from the insurers that purchase its products and services. Plaintiff argues that it does not have access to the information.

    The SROG (set four) includes 144 interrogatories. (Mot., Ex. C.) The Court has reviewed the SROGs at issue. The SROGs take on a character where Plaintiff first asks if: (1) GCI contends Plaintiff was involved in an incident on a particular date, and, if so, to state (2) the facts supporting the contention, (3) identify persons with knowledge of the facts/events, (4) identify all supporting documents, (5) describe GCI’s knowledge of the incident, and (6) identify any information GCI has that the claim was in any way improper. This includes incidents Plaintiff was or may have been involved in as far back as 1987 to 2018.

    The number of SROGs propounded is excessive. A review of the SROGs show that they can be better limited and tailored to seek information from Defendant. While the information sought in the SROGs may be relevant to some extent, the Court finds that the SROGs can be tailored to seek pertinent information. In particular, the information sought is regarding incidents involving Plaintiff nearly 30 years back, which is likely to be information that is equally available to Plaintiff. In tailoring the requests, Plaintiff and counsel should consider pursuing discovery on incidents/issues that involve the same or similar types of damages that are at issue in this action (i.e., injuries to Plaintiff’s head and/or traumatic brain injury claims).

    According to the declaration of Stephen K. McElroy Re Additional Discovery, he states that the excessive number of SROGs is warranted because they address critical allegations and issues raised by GCI regarding other claims and losses identified as potentially related to Plaintiff and the questions cannot be addressed in depositions as the information is not known to any witness other than counsel who has access to the claims information. (Mot., Ex. D [McElroy Decl., ¶7].) While Mr. McElroy’s declaration complies with CCP §2030.050 in form, the Court does not necessarily find that the declaration sufficiently explains why all of the incidents involving Plaintiff from over 30 years back are relevant and necessary such as to justify the need for 144 SROGs. Further, as the incidents involve Plaintiff, Plaintiff should have more avenues open to discover this information that the Defendant.

    As pointed out by GCI in reply, Plaintiff could have tailored the request to seek only pertinent and relevant information, asking: (1) which of the 34 pages of claims listed on the ISO report that GCI alleges involved Plaintiff; (2) which involve personal injuries claimed by Plaintiff; (3) GCI to identify witnesses known to it to support its allegations; and (4) GCI to identify all writings that support the allegations. (Reply at p.3.) Although the SROGs do not have to be exactly as laid out by GCI in the reply, Plaintiff is encouraged to propound more narrowly tailored SROGs that result in responses regarding matters that are relevant to this action from GCI.

    With regard to GCI’s reliance on the attorney work product doctrine, other than invoking the doctrine, GCI has not explained why the doctrine is actually implicated. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the SROGs are excessive in number and should be narrowed to a more limited number and topics.

    CONCLUSION AND ORDER

    GCI’s motion for protective order is granted as to the SROGs (set four), such that Plaintiff is ordered to limit the number of SROGs propounded to a reasonable amount of 35 and propound this amended set on GCI.

    GCI shall provide notice of this order.