COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0467 Hearing Date: May 26, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: May 26, 2023

CASE NUMBER: *******0467

CASE NAME: County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. City of Redondo Beach, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Flood Control District

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, S&B Construction Services, Inc.

TRIAL DATE: March 25, 2024

MOTION: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One.

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. Verified Responses shall be due by June 2, 2023

(2) GRANTED. Verified Responses shall be due by June 2, 2023

(3) GRANTED. Verified Responses and initial document production shall be due by June 2, 2023

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On June 13, 2022, Plaintiffs, County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Flood Control District filed a Complaint against Defendants, City of Redondo Beach, American Dark Fiber, LLC, HP Communications, Inc., S&B Construction Services, Inc., Steve Anstead, and DOES 1 through 100. On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence against Defendant, City of Redondo Beach; (2) Negligence against Defendants, American Dark Fiber, LLC, HP Communications, Inc., S&B Construction Services, Inc., Steven Anstead, and DOES 1 through 100; (3) Negligence Per Se against all Defendants; (4) Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision against Defendant, S&B Construction Services, Inc.; and (5) Strict Liability – Ultrahazardous Activity against Defendants, American Dark Fiber, LLC, HP Communications, Inc., S&B Construction Services, Inc., Steven Anstead, and DOES 1 through 100.

On February 14, 2023, S&B propounded written discovery on Plaintiff comprised of Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. S&B notes that Plaintiff’s responses were initially due on March 20, 2023. However, S&B notes that on March 15, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a “30-day extension” until April 28, 2023, to respond to S&B’s written discovery. S&B notes, however, that although Plaintiff’s request indicated the extension was for thirty (30) days, given Plaintiff’s responses were originally due on March 20, 2023, Plaintiff’s was actually requesting a 39-day extension to respond. (Decl. of A. Rivero, 7, Exhibit D.) On March 16, 2023, S&B’s counsel granted Plaintiff an extension of two weeks to respond to S&B’s written discovery, making Plaintiff’s responses due on April 3, 2023. (Decl. of A. Rivero, 8, Exhibit E.) S&B notes that after the two-week extension provided by S&B’s counsel, other than the purported “meet and confer communication” sent by Plaintiff on the same day it filed its Motion, Plaintiff made no additional formal requests for extensions.

B. Procedural

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff, County of Los Angeles filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. On May 15, 2023, Defendant, S&B Construction Services, Inc. filed oppositions to all three motions. On May 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Compel Responses

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.010, subd. (d).)

Here, Plaintiff asserts that the short extension to April 3, 2023 was insufficient for the County and its attorneys to review its investigation and other material to fully respond to the form interrogatories. The County is seeking an extension to June 2, 2023 to respond to the discovery requests. Plaintiff’s counsel, Allan L. Thomas, notes in his declaration that between February 14, 2023, and March 15, 2023, he was unable to prepare responses to the discovery because of other matters and clients for which he was engaged. Mr. Thomas asserts that he has a significant trial calendar, deposition schedule, and other cases that require preparation of discovery that creates the need for mutual cooperation with opposing counsel to obtain extensions, as necessary.

In opposition, S&B asserts that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for an extension of time to respond to S&B’s interrogatories. S&B asserts that in an effort to resolve the matter without further court intervention and avoid any further unnecessary delays in the litigation of this case, after receiving service of Plaintiff's moving papers and reviewing the same, S & B's Counsel contacted Plaintiff's counsel to grant an extension until April 28, 2023. In addition, S&B explained that should Plaintiff's counsel had requested another extension, Defendant would have kindly granted it. (Decl. of A. Rivero, 10, Ex. E.) S&B also notes that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith. Lastly, S&B argues that Plaintiff is continuing to engage in dilatory tactics, noting that discovery was served on February 14, 2023, and despite having three months to respond to written discovery, Plaintiff’s counsel has not made any attempt to provide responses to S&B’s Form Interrogatories, nor has he responded to S&B’s counsel’s efforts to provide the discovery responses with further court intervention.

IV. CONCLUSION

This is a substantial case involving substantial issues that counsel will need to work cooperatively to litigate. Regardless of the propounding party’s sense of urgency, the granting of a two-week extension when the responding party asks for a month is troublesome so early in the case. The Court is mindful of the need by a defendant being accused of wrongdoing to rapidly unearth the facts upon which a plaintiff is seeking recovery. After all, the plaintiff must have a factual basis for asserting its claim and could not have filed without having a good faith factual basis for making the allegations in this case. But discovery is a two-way street and the press of other matters confronting litigation counsel may re-surface for other counsel, possibly even the propounding counsel, during this case. The County best bear the two-way street in mind if and when it seeks discovery from S&B, and from other parties, over the course of this litigation.

Further, the new deadline requested by these motions expires less than a week after the hearing date. In future, the parties should bear in mind that the Court makes itself available for Informal Discovery Conferences by stipulation of the parties, so that future miscues or disputes like this can be addressed much sooner than the Court Reservation System for noticed motions might normally allow.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff to give notice.