This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/10/2020 at 19:02:33 (UTC).

KYLE OLSEN VS VALMONT INDUSTRIES INC

Case Summary

On 03/08/2018 KYLE OLSEN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against VALMONT INDUSTRIES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS, DUKES, ROBERT A., PETER A. HERNANDEZ and KENNETH R. FREEMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7068

  • Filing Date:

    03/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

DUKES, ROBERT A.

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

KENNETH R. FREEMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

OLSEN KYLE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

VALMONT INDUSTRIES INC.

LINDSAY CORPORATION

VALMONT HIGHWAY

ARMORFLEX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

LINDSAY TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION SALES & S

FERREIRA CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DOES 1 TO 50

LINDSEY TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION SALES&

LINDESY CORP

FERREIRA CONSTRUCTION CO INC.

ARMORFLEZ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

POWELL CONSTRUCTION INC

HIGHWAY VALMONT

LINDSAY TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION SALES&

POWELL CONSTRUCTION INC.

STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND SIGNS INC.

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

FERREIRA CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

POWELL CONSTRUCTION INC

POWELL CONSTRUCTION INC.

Defendants and Not Classified By Court

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant, Respondent, Plaintiff and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

PHILLIPS DAVID M. ESQ.

ALDERFER AMY B. ESQ.

PHILLIPS DAVID MATTHEW ESQ.

MONTGOMERY MICHAEL J.

Attorney at Montgomery Steele

517 N. Mountain Ave., Ste. 210

Upland, CA 91786

MONTGOMERY MICHAEL JAMES

AUSTIN DAVID A.

AUSTIN DAVID A. ESQ.

SIPES EDWARD EUGENE

ALDERFER AMY BRIDGET ESQ.

AUSTIN DAVID ALLEN ESQ.

CHAN BENSON YU ESQ.

ASH PAUL V

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MONTGOMERY MICHAEL J.

Attorney at Montgomery Steele

517 N. Mountain Ave., Ste. 210

Upland, CA 91786

Defendant, Respondent and Plaintiff Attorneys

PHILLIPS DAVID M. ESQ.

ALDERFER AMY B. ESQ.

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Plaintiff Attorneys

AUSTIN DAVID A. ESQ.

SIPES EDWARD EUGENE

PHILLIPS DAVID MATTHEW ESQ.

CHAN BENSON YU ESQ.

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

SIPES EDWARD EUGENE

PHILLIPS DAVID MATTHEW ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

8/11/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER;) OF 03/17/2020

3/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER;) OF 03/17/2020

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT LINDSAY TRANSPO

2/24/2020: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT LINDSAY TRANSPO

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION LINDSAY CORPORATION AND LINDSAY TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, LLC F/K/A LINDSAY TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS SALES & SERVICE, LLCS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE

2/14/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION LINDSAY CORPORATION AND LINDSAY TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, LLC F/K/A LINDSAY TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS SALES & SERVICE, LLCS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE

Separate Statement

2/5/2020: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

1/17/2020: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE;)

11/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE;)

Order - ORDER ON THE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING

11/26/2019: Order - ORDER ON THE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

5/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

Separate Statement

1/31/2019: Separate Statement

Opposition - Opposition To Exparte

1/16/2019: Opposition - Opposition To Exparte

Cross-Complaint -

8/27/2018: Cross-Complaint -

Cross-Complaint

11/19/2018: Cross-Complaint

Application - PRO HAC VICE

7/3/2018: Application - PRO HAC VICE

Declaration - OF MICHAEL MONTGOMERY

7/3/2018: Declaration - OF MICHAEL MONTGOMERY

Memorandum of Points & Authorities -

7/3/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities -

Notice -

7/5/2018: Notice -

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order -

8/8/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order -

129 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/06/2021
  • Hearing04/06/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • Hearing03/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • Hearing01/14/2021 at 14:00 PM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • Hearing11/16/2020 at 14:00 PM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketOrder (on the Court's Modified Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter;) of 09/09/2020, Court's Modified Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Requests for Production of Documents and Special Interrogatories) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Production (of Documents) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
221 More Docket Entries
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF APPLICATION AND VERIFIED APPLICATION OF SHELBY K. RINEY TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF APPLICATION AND VERIFIED APPLICATION OF JAMES H. HELLER TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Lindsay Corporation (Defendant); Lindsay Transportation Solution Sales & S (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Lindsay Corporation (Defendant); Lindsay Transportation Solution Sales & S (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Kyle Olsen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697068    Hearing Date: September 09, 2020    Dept: O

2-3. After hearing, Defendants Lindsay Corporation and Lindsay Transportation Solutions Sales & Service, LLC’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (set one) and special interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. Defendant State of California is ordered to provide supplemental verified responses without objections within 60 days.

Defendants/Cross-Defendants Lindsay Corporation and Lindsay Transportation Solutions Sales & Service, LLC (collectively “Lindsay”) move the Court for an order requiring Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant State of California (“State”) to provide further verified responses to its request for production of documents (set one) and special interrogatories (set one).

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Lindsay failed to reserve separate motions for these two discovery motions and filed one motion under the reservation number 828972677955. Lindsay and their counsel are admonished to comply with the Court Reservation System’s (“CRS”) guidelines and file (and pay for) separate motions for each discovery vehicle at issue. This department limits via the CRS system the number and types of motions to be heard on a daily basis in order to efficiently manage its law and motion calendar on the now over 600 cases assigned to it.

Request for Production of Documents (Nos. 2, 3, 11-15, 34)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item with any of the following: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing or sampling; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item; or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. (CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Any objections as set forth in (3), above, must be specific. A motion to compel lies where objections are “too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection of an item or category of item, the response shall, if necessary, include a privilege log that provides sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim. (CCP § 2031.240.)

The State generally objects to these requests and opposes the motion on the basis that the information sought is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive, and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery. At the hearing, the State fixated on the burdensome nature of the requests.

As both parties know, the scope of discovery is quite broad. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010; see Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) Thus, objections asserting the request is vague, ambiguous or overbroad are generally not valid objections. Likewise, only claims of undue burden or oppression are valid. Under these standards, the party opposing the motion must show that the quantum of work required by responding party is unreasonable, or that the effect of the burden is incommensurate with the results sought. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Los Angeles) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) The State has failed to do so.

The Court disagrees that the Requests Nos. 2, 3, 11-15, 34 are unduly burdensome or oppressive on the State. The State fails to show the quantum of work required that would cause it to be unduly burdensome here. (Id.) Moreover, at the hearing, they provided nothing in terms of justifying their general conclusion that the request would be burdensome. The burden to the State does not outweigh the results Lindsay seeks in requesting these documents. The self-admitted document gathering limitations the State has created cannot be used as a shield against production nor a sword to justify abdicating its responsibility. Here, in summary and without much dispute by the State, Lindsay stated that they are looking for these documents because they go to disproving that the X-Lite rail guards were defective as Plaintiff Kyle Olsen contends. This factual issue goes straight to Lindsay’s case theory and is extremely relevant.

Thus, the Motion is GRANTED as to the request for production of documents.  The State is ordered to provide verified and responses without objections to the outstanding requests within 60 days.

Special Interrogatories (No. 47)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2030.300(b).)

Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(a),(b).)

The interrogatory at issue here requested: “State all facts involved in Caltrans’ decision to install a guardrail end terminal, as opposed to another roadside safety device, at the location of the Subject Accident.”

The State contends that the question is too vague for it to answer this interrogatory and asks it to engage in speculation as to what Lindsay meant by “another roadside safety device.”

While the Court agrees, in part, with State that it is fairly broad what “another roadside safety device” would entail, it also notes in this assertion an admission that State’s counsel failed to provide any alternative definition of this phrase. The State’s counsel easily could have unilaterally defined this phrase to what it believed was a reasonable definition that would be within the scope of this case. Not only is this allowed under the Discovery Act (see CCP § 2030.220) but would have also demonstrated to the Court the State’s good faith and reasonableness. Instead, the State’s counsel chose to put the ball back in Lindsay’s court.

Furthermore, while the State did supplement its response to state that “the decision was based upon engineering judgment and practices,” this response is uncertain as to what standards, facts, or circumstances were employed that complied with such “engineering judgment and practices.”

At the hearing, the State maintained it could not answer the interrogatory as posed but offered no alternative to this Court but to deny such request. The Court will decline the invitation and will GRANT the Motion. The State is ordered to submit its response as modified by deeming the phrase “another roadside safety device” to include “crash cushion, concrete barrier, breakaway hardware, or any other physical barrier that would redirect or contain errant vehicles.” The State is ordered to provide its verified responses without objections within 60 days.

Case Number: BC697068    Hearing Date: September 04, 2020    Dept: O

ANALYSIS

1 Defendant State of California’s motion to compel further responses to production of documents, set one is GRANTED.  Defendant Lindsay Transportation Solution Sales & Service, LLC is ordered to provide supplemental verified and responses without objections within 30 days after State of California serves Lindsay the revised supplemental requests.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant State of California, acting through the Department of Transportation (“State”) moves the Court for an order requiring Defendant/Cross-Defendant Lindsay Transportation Solutions Sales & Service, LLC (“Lindsay”) to provide further verified responses to its request for production of documents (set one).

Where verification is required by the discovery statute, an unverified response is ineffective and is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item with any of the following: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing or sampling; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item; or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. (CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Any objections as set forth in (3), above, must be specific. A motion to compel lies where objections are “too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection of an item or category of item, the response shall, if necessary, include a privilege log that provides sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim. (CCP § 2031.240.)

The requests at issue in this motion seek documents that contain the following categories of documents: (a) Documents from all civil litigation cases where Lindsay was named as a defendant from 2011 to present (Request No. 1), and (b) expert disclosures from such cases (Requests Nos. 2 & 3). Ultimately, the issues in these two categories of documents are identical, and the Court will address them all globally.

Request No. 1 asks for: “Any and all discovery responses served by Lindsay […] in connection with any and all civil actions involving the X-Lite Guardrail End Terminal system in which LINDSAY has been named as a defendant from 2011 to present.”

Request No. 2 asks for: “Any and all DOCUMENTS in connection with any and all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26 expert disclosures made by LINDSAY in any and all civil actions involving the X-Lite Guardrail End Terminal system in which LINDSAY has been named as a defendant from 2011 to present.”

Request No. 3 asks for: “Any and all DOCUMENTS in connection with any and all expert disclosures/designation (including any and all expert reports to the extent that disclosure has occurred) made by LINDSAY in any and all civil actions involving the X-Lite Guardrail End Terminal system in which LINDSAY has been named as a defendant from 2011 to present.”

Lindsay responded to these requests by objecting that the information sought are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product doctrine, and are not probative of any issue in this case. Furthermore, Lindsay contends that federal courts have routinely held that this so-called “clone discovery” is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, even where some issues overlap.

The State contends, however, that after meeting and conferring regarding these requests, the State has clarified and agreed to limit the instant request to civil actions for personal injury and/or wrongful death that concerns the X-Lite and to which Lindsay is a defendant. Furthermore, the requests specifically requests for discovery responses in prior litigations, which ultimately concerns documents that are not privileged given that the information was disclosed and/or produced to other parties/entities by Lindsay in prior matters. The State also contends that these requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the prior civil actions involved the same product and the same claims.

While Lindsay provides numerous statement of law under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it fails to provide any statement of law under California Civil Procedure (“CCP”), the applicable law that this Court will follow in adjudicating motions in this case.

Lindsay has not shown any case law in California that “clone discovery” is not reasonably calculated under California Law. On the other hand, the State has demonstrated that these requests comply with CCP section 2017.010 and the State has demonstrated good cause for compelling further responses to these requests.

Thus, the Motion is GRANTED. The State is ordered to send supplemental request to these requests, formally revising its request based on the parties’ prior meet and confer efforts clarifying these questions. Lindsay is then ordered to provide verified and responses without objections to the revised requests within 30 days from the date the State serves Lindsay the revised supplemental requests.

2-3. Defendants Lindsay Corporation and Lindsay Transportation Solutions Sales & Service, LLC’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one and special interrogatories, set one is GRANTED. Defendant State of California is ordered to provide supplemental verified responses without objections within 30 days.

Defendants/Cross-Defendants Lindsay Corporation and Lindsay Transportation Solutions Sales & Service, LLC (collectively “Lindsay”) move the Court for an order requiring Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant State of California (“State”) to provide further verified responses to its request for production of documents, set one, and special interrogatories, set one.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Lindsay failed to reserve separate motions for these discovery motions and filed one motion under the reservation number 828972677955. Lindsay and their counsel are admonished to comply with the Court Reservation System’s (“CRS”) guidelines and file (and pay for) separate motions for each discovery vehicle at issue. This department sets limits via the CRS system on the number and types of motions to be heard on a daily basis in order to efficiently manage its law and motion on the now over 600 cases assigned to it.

Request for Production of Documents (Nos. 2, 3, 11-15, 34)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item with any of the following: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing or sampling; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item; or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. (CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Any objections as set forth in (3), above, must be specific. A motion to compel lies where objections are “too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection of an item or category of item, the response shall, if necessary, include a privilege log that provides sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim. (CCP § 2031.240.)

The State generally objects to these requests and opposes the motion on the basis that the information sought is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive, and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery.

However, as both parties know, the scope of discovery is quite broad. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010; see Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) Thus, objections asserting the request is vague, ambiguous or overbroad are generally not valid objections. Likewise, only claims of undue burden or oppression are valid. Under these standards, the party opposing the motion must show that the quantum of work required by responding party is unreasonable, or that the effect of the burden is incommensurate with the results sought. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Los Angeles) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)

The Court disagrees that the Requests Nos. 2, 3, 11-15, 34 are unduly burdensome or oppressive on the State. The State fails to show the quantum of work required that would cause it to be unduly burdensome here. (Id.) Furthermore, the burden to the State does not outweigh the results Lindsay seek in requesting these documents. In this instant case, Lindsay stated that they are looking for these documents because they go to disproving that the X-Lite rail guards were defective as Plaintiff contends. This factual issue goes straight to Lindsay’s case theory as is extremely relevant.

Thus, the Motion is GRANTED as to the request for production of documents. The State is ordered to provide verified and responses without objections to the outstanding requests within 30 days.

Special Interrogatories (No. 47)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2030.300(b).)

Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(a),(b).)

The interrogatory at issue here requested: “State all facts involved in Caltrans’ decision to install a guardrail end terminal, as opposed to another roadside safety device, at the location of the Subject Accident.”

The State contends that the question is too vague for it to answer this interrogatory and asks it to engage in speculation as to what Lindsay meant by “another roadside safety device.”

While the Court agrees with State that it is fairly broad what “another roadside safety device” would entail, it also notes in this assertion an admission that State’s counsel failed to provide any alternative definition of this phrase. The State’s counsel easily could have unilaterally defined this phrase to what it believed was a reasonable definition that would be within the scope of this case. Not only is this allowed under the Discovery Act (see CCP § 2030.220) but would have also demonstrated to the Court the State’s good faith and reasonableness. Instead, the State’s counsel chose to put the ball back in Lindsay’s court.

Furthermore, while the State did supplement its response to state that “the decision was based upon engineering judgment and practices,” this response is uncertain as to what standards, facts, or circumstances were employed that complied with such “engineering judgment and practices.”

Thus, the Motion is GRANTED. The State is ordered to submit its response by deeming the phrase “another roadside safety device” to include “crash cushion, concrete barrier, breakaway hardware, or any other physical barrier that would redirect or contain errant vehicles.” The State is ordered to provide its verified responses without objections within 30 days.

4. Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Powell Constructors, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental verified responses without objections within 30 days.

Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Powell Constructors, Inc.’s (“Cross-Defendant”) request for judicial notice as to Exhibit A is GRANTED. (Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to a demand for production of documents if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(a)(2).)

Any objections as set forth in (3), above, must be specific. A motion to compel lies where objections are “too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the requests. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection of an item or category of item, the response shall, if necessary, include a privilege log that provides sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim. (CCP § 2031.240.)

On August 26, 2019, Cross-Defendant served its Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff Kyle Olsen (“Plaintiff”). (See Declaration of Elizabeth Schaus ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Cross-Defendant received unverified responses on September 26, 2019, and the responses were deficient, prompting Cross-Defendant’s counsel to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. B & C.) Eventually, Plaintiff served Cross-Defendant with the verification of the responses by email, but Defendant had not agreed to email service as a method of service for written discovery responses. According to Cross-Defendant, the responses also continued to be deficient s to Request Nos. 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-15, 25 and 27. (Id. at ¶ 9.) It appears after numerous extensions and meet and confer attempts, Plaintiff’s counsel has refused to provide supplemental responses to the discovery, and Cross-Defendant has not received any further communications from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-13.) The Court is also not in receipt of any opposition from Plaintiff.

The Motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified and responses without objections to the requests within 30 days.

Case Number: BC697068    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: O

Defendant State of California’s motion to compel further responses to production of documents, set one is GRANTED. Defendant Lindsay Transportation Solution Sales & Service, LLC is ordered to provide supplemental verified and objectionless responses within 30 days after State of California serves Lindsay the revised supplemental requests.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant State of California, acting through the Department of Transportation, (“State”) moves the court for an order requiring Defendant/Cross-Defendant Lindsay Transportation Solutions Sales & Service, LLC (“Lindsay”) to provide further verified responses to its request for production of documents (set one).

Where verification is required by the discovery statute, an unverified response is ineffective and is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item with any of the following: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing or sampling; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item; or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. (CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Objections must be specific. A motion to compel lies where objections are “too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection of an item or category of item, the response shall, if necessary, include a privilege log that provides sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim. (CCP § 2031.240.)

The requests at issue in this motion seek documents that contain the following categories of documents: documents from all civil litigation cases where Lindsay was named as a defendant from 2011 to present (Request No. 1), and expert disclosures from such cases (Requests Nos. 2 & 3). Ultimately, the issues in these two categories of documents are identical, and the Court will address them all globally.

Request No. 1 asks for: “Any and all discovery responses served by Lindsay […] in connection with any and all civil actions involving the X-Lite Guardrail End Terminal system in which LINDSAY has been named as a defendant from 2011 to present.”

Request No. 2 asks for: “Any and all DOCUMENTS in connection with any and all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26 expert disclosures made by LINDSAY in any and all civil actions involving the X-Lite Guardrail End Terminal system in which LINDSAY has been named as a defendant from 2011 to present.”

Request No. 3 asks for: “Any and all DOCUMENTS in connection with any and all expert disclosures/designation (including any and all expert reports to the extent that disclosure has occurred) made by LINDSAY in any and all civil actions involving the X-Lite Guardrail End Terminal system in which LINDSAY has been named as a defendant from 2011 to present.”

Lindsay responded to these requests by objecting that the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product doctrine, and is not probative of any issue in this case. Furthermore, Lindsay contends that federal courts have routinely held that these so-called “clone discovery” requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, even where some issues overlap.

The State contends, however, that after meeting and conferring regarding these requests, the State has clarified and agreed to limit the instant request to civil actions for personal injury and/or wrongful death that concerns the X-Lite and to which Lindsay is a defendant. Furthermore, the requests specifically asks for discovery responses in prior litigations, which ultimately concerns documents that are not privileged as they have been disclosed and/or produced to other parties/entities by Lindsay before. State also contends that these requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the prior civil actions involved the same product and the same claims.

While Lindsay provides numerous statement of law under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it fails to provide any statement of law under California Civil Procedure (“CCP”), the applicable law that this Court must follow in adjudicating motions in this case.

Lindsay has not shown any case law in California that “clone discovery” is not reasonably calculated under California Law. On the other hand, the State has demonstrated that these requests comply with section 2017.010 and the State has demonstrated good cause for compelling further responses to these requests.

Thus, Motion is GRANTED. State is ordered to send supplemental request to these requests, formally revising its request based on the parties’ prior meet and confer efforts clarifying these questions. Lindsay is then ordered to provide verified and objectionless responses to the revised requests within 30 days from the date State serves Lindsay the revised supplemental requests.

Case Number: BC697068    Hearing Date: November 26, 2019    Dept: O

Attorney Jillian T. Flax’s application for admission pro hac vice to represent Defendant Lindsay Corporation is GRANTED.

Case Number: BC697068    Hearing Date: November 25, 2019    Dept: O

Attorney Jillian T. Flax’s application for admission pro hac vice to represent Defendant Lindsay Corporation is GRANTED.

Applications to appear pro hac vice are governed by CRC 9.40. The rule requires that the attorney be admitted to practice before a U.S. court or the highest court of any state or territory. A member of the California bar must be associated as attorney of record. The applicant must not be a resident of or regularly employed in California and should not make repeated appearances in California. (CRC 9.40(a).)

The application must be served upon all parties who have appeared in the case and upon the San Francisco Office of the State Bar of California. (CRC 9.40(b).) Additionally, pursuant to California Rules of Court 9.40(d), the application must state the following:

  1. the applicant’s residence and office address;

  2. the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission;

  3. that the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts;

  4. that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court;

  5. the title of court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and

  6. the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.

    Ms. Flax is admitted to practice and is a member in good standing in her out-of-state jurisdiction. She declared that she has never been suspended or disbarred from practicing law. She has associated as counsel Amy Alderfer, who is an active member of the State Bar of California. The statutory fees have been forwarded to the State Bar along with the applications as required under CRC 9.40(e).

    Accordingly, the application is GRANTED.