On 01/03/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by VIRGINIA C KING against COUNTRY VILLA CLAREMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Pomona Courthouse South
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
KING VIRGINIA C.
COUNTRY VILLA CLAREMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER
DOES 1 TO 10
GARDENVIEW HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE
4/12/2019: Stipulation and Order
7/5/2019: Minute Order
7/5/2019: Certificate of Mailing for
7/16/2019: Certificate of Mailing for
7/16/2019: Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings
7/16/2019: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)
7/16/2019: Certificate of Mailing for
9/14/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
4/27/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, GARDEN VIEW HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP AKA COUNTRY VILLA CLAREMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF, VIRGINIA G. KING
4/27/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
3/19/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
2/6/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
1/3/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
Notice (Case Reassignment); Filed by Virginia C. King (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (Case Transfer and Reassignment to Independent Calendar Court in the East District); Filed by Virginia C. King (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 3:00 PM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer) of 07/16/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Court Order Re: Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Gardenview Healthcare & Wellness Centre, (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Court Order Re: Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer), Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings]); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Protective Order) of 07/05/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Gardenview Healthcare & Wellness Centre, (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, GARDEN VIEW HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP AKA COUNTRY VILLA CLAREMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF, VIRGINIA G. KINGRead MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Virginia C. King (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Virginia C. King (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Virginia C. King (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC689132 Hearing Date: December 09, 2019 Dept: O
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS DENIED.
Defendant moves for a protective order in connection with Plaintiff’s request to inspect, among other areas, the roof, attic, and building interior of Defendant’s premises. The proposed protective order conditions the site inspection on the execution by Plaintiff, and his representations, of a waiver and release of liability, to prevent further tort liability arising from Plaintiff’s inspection of the premises not open to the public. Without the condition imposed by the proposed protective order, Defendant contends Plaintiff’s inspection demand constitutes unwarranted harassment and is unduly burdensome, oppressive, and onerous on Defendant.
“When 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. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”
Plaintiff contends the motion should be denied because it was not promptly made. The papers show the delay in bringing the motion after the inspection demand was served was due to the parties’ meet and confer efforts. (Mot. Gobel Decl. ¶¶ 6-8, Exh. 4.)
Therefore, the Court finds the procedural requirements are satisfied.
“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, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:
(1) That all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be produced or made available at all.
(4) That the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be made only on specified terms and conditions.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(b).)
“When discovery requests are grossly overbroad on their face, and hence do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need, a reasonable inference can be drawn of an intent to harass and improperly burden.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)
“‘Oppression’ means the ultimate effect of the burden of responding to the discovery is ‘incommensurate with the result sought.’ [citation] In considering whether the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, the court takes into account ‘the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.’ [citation]” (People ex rel. Harris v. Sarpas (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1552.)
Here, Plaintiff allege Defendant “negligently failed to maintain the subject roof….” (Compl. ¶ Prem.L-1.) Thus, the Court does not find the demand to inspect the roof and attic are grossly overbroad on its face. Therefore, the Court does not make an inference the demand intends to harass or improperly burden.
In sum, the condition of the roof at Defendant's premises is sufficiently at issue in this lawsuit, and therefore, a demand to inspect it does not subject Defendant to unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. The Court does not agree with Defendant's argument to the contrary. (Reply, 3:19-28.) Defendant overestimates the speculative nature of a leak in the roof causing the dangerous condition in the hallway. Defendant also overestimates the tangential nature of a leak in the roof because it would be a condition that created risk of harm, and if the leak appears to have existed for a long period of time or had been ineffectively repaired over time, this would be relevant to proving Defendants’ premises liability. (See Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 472, 479 [“In determining whether [name of defendant] knew or should have known of the condition that created the risk of harm you must decide whether, under all the circumstances, the condition was of such a nature and existed long enough so that it would have been discovered and corrected by an owner using reasonable care.”].)
Accordingly, there are insufficient grounds to enter the proposed protective order.
Both parties request sanctions.
“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(h).)
The Court denies Defendants’ request for sanctions because they unsuccessfully brought this motion
The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions because they successfully opposed the motion. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $750 ($250/hour * 3 hours (2 hours for preparing opposition and 1 hour for appearing at hearing)).