Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6789 Hearing Date: January 19, 2022 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged). Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Rena Irene Pasillas sued Defendant Food 4 Less of California, Inc. based on a slip and fall. Defendant moves for a protective order precluding Plaintiff from taking the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) as to 8 categories identified by Plaintiff and 3 categories of document production requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (a), “[b]efore, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2025.420, subd. (a).) Similarly, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060, subdivision (a), “[w]hen an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.060, subd. (a).)

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include…[t]hat all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be produced or made available at all.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.060, subd. (b).) “A party seeking the protective order must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the issuance of a protective order is proper.” (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.) “Generally, a deponent seeking a protective order will be required to show that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in [the discovery procedure] clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.)

Here, Defendant claims there is good cause for the requested protective order because Plaintiff’s deposition notice fails to describe the categories for which Defendant must produce a PMK with reasonable particularity and seeks irrelevant information. According to Defendant, Plaintiff must further clarify where Plaintiff alleges the incident occurred on the subject premises and at what time so that Defendant can produce the appropriate PMK. The Court does not agree that Plaintiff’s requests must be so precise.

The scope of the discovery statute is quite broad. (See Code Civ. Proc., 2017.010 [“any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant…”].) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery, and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.” (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 [cleaned up] [emphasis original].)

Here, the Court finds the contested categories and requests for production are sufficiently tailored in time and scope to reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant information. Further, Defendant does not elucidate how the proposed protective order will prevent unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense; or that such threats exist. (See Nativi v. Deutche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 220 [a declaration submitted in support of a motion for protective order must contain factual specificity].) Defendant does not demonstrate that the contested categories, as Plaintiff has agreed to modify them, are so overbroad that Defendant is unable to determine which employee(s) to produce for testimony, or that Defendant will be forced to produce such a high number of employees that the requests are unduly burdensome. In fact, Defendant does not state whether it has even attempted to determine which employee(s) may be qualified to testify concerning the contested categories. It is entirely possible that a single employee, such as a store manager, would be able to testify as to all the subject categories and more. Once the PMK is produced, Defendant remains able to object to the disclosure of any privileged, irrelevant, or other similarly objectionable information sought at deposition.

The parties seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court finds Defendant has unsuccessfully made the motion for a protective order, warranting monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc, 2019.030, subd. (c).) Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, Wesierski & Zurek, LLP, in the amount of $1,012, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the opposition and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fee of $12.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for a protective order. Further, the Court orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, Wesierski & Zurek, LLP, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,012 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of the hearing.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.

Case Number: ****6789    Hearing Date: December 11, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

Plaintiff Rena Irene Pasillas (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (“Defendant”) to provide further answers to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Set Three, as well as Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Three. The Court rules as follows:

Special Interrogatory #52 – Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, the motion is denied because Defendant has provided a satisfactory response.

Special Interrogatory #53 – Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, the motion is denied because Defendant has provided a satisfactory response.

Special Interrogatory #56 – Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, the motion is denied because Defendant has provided a satisfactory response.

Special Interrogatory #57 – Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, the motion is denied because Defendant has provided a satisfactory response.

Special Interrogatory #62 – Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, the motion is denied because Defendant has provided a satisfactory response.

Special Interrogatory #63 – Defendant’s objections are overruled. The motion is granted because Defendant has not provided a code-compliant response. If Defendant has no footage from 5:27:15 to 5:35:41, it must provide a code-compliant response addressing this omission.

Request for Production #88 – Granted in part and denied in part. For Defendant’s former employee, Ashley Ulloa, Defendant shall produce: (1) Ms. Ulloa’s dates of employment for Defendant, (2) Ms. Ulloa’s work schedule during June and July 2015, (3) All performance evaluations, including any written reprimands, and (4) Contact information for Ms. Ulloa.

Request for Production #89 – Granted.

The parties seek sanctions in connection with this motion. An award of sanctions to either party would be unjust as both parties bear responsibility for this discovery dispute. Therefore, the Court denies both requests for sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are granted in part and denied in part. Defendant shall provide code-compliant responses to Special Interrogatory #63, Request for Production #88, and Request for Production #89, without objections, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are denied. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 11, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court