Jaime Melgoza vs Costco Wholesale Corporation
Jaime Melgoza vs Costco Wholesale Corporation
Case Number
22CV04413
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 02/05/2024 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion: Compel Furter Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One
Tentative Ruling
Jaime Melgoza v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Case No. 22CV04413
Hearing Date: February 5, 2024
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Jaime Melgoza: Shahab Sean Shamsi, The Shamsi Law Firm, APC
For Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation: Sean R. Burnett, Jessica Farley, Snyder Burnett Egerer LLP
TENTATIVE RULING:
(1) The court grants the motion of plaintiff to compel defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation to provide further responses to form interrogatories. On or before February 19, 2024, defendant shall serve verified further responses to plaintiff’s set one form interrogatory nos. 1.1, 3.1, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 16.1 through 16.6, 16.9, and 16.10, without objections overruled herein except as to privilege.
(2) The court awards sanctions in favor of plaintiff Jaime Melgoza and against defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation and its counsel, in the amount of $2,510, payable to plaintiff’s counsel. Payment of sanctions is due by March 5, 2024.
(3) Plaintiff shall give notice of the court’s ruling.
Background:
On November 7, 2022, plaintiff Jaime Melgoza filed a complaint in this matter against defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco), alleging two causes of action for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that on November 7, 2020, he sustained personal injuries as a result of Costco’s failure to “properly inspect, maintain, service, conduct sweeps, service and/or repair [premises located at 7095 Market Pace Street in Goleta, California] for a substantial period of time prior to the incident, allowing a dangerous condition to remain, creating a hazardous, dangerous condition that existed for a sufficient time for [Coscto] to have corrected and/or warned plaintiff thereof, which [Costco] failed to do….” (Compl., ¶¶ GN-1, Prem.L-1.)
Costco filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint on May 19, 2023, generally denying its allegations and asserting thirty affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for an order compelling Costco to provide further responses to plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories (the FI). Plaintiff also requests that the court impose sanctions against Costco and its counsel for fees and costs resulting from Costco’s purported misuse of the discovery process. In support of the motion, plaintiff submits a declaration of his counsel, Jessica Farley, who declares:
Plaintiff served Costco with the FI on August 14, 2023. (Shamsi Decl., ¶ 3.) Responses to the FI were due from Costco by September 16, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
Costco’s counsel requested a total of three extensions to respond to the FI, which plaintiff asserts seek to ascertain facts, witnesses, evidence, and documents upon which Costco bases its defenses in this matter. (Shamsi Decl., ¶¶ 5, 11, 12 & Exh. A.) On November 17, 2023, Costco served responses to the FI which plaintiff contends were “replete with only objections…..” (Id. at ¶¶ 6 & 7.) On November 17, 2023, counsel for plaintiff sent an email to Costco’s counsel “taking exception” to the objections asserted by Costco and demanding substantive responses by November 27, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 8 & Exh. B.) Costco’s counsel did not respond to the email and Costco did not serve further responses to the interrogatories. (Id. at ¶¶ 9 & 10.)
Costco has not timely filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion.
Analysis:
A party responding to interrogatories must respond separately to each interrogatory by either “[a]n answer containing the information sought to be discovered”, “[a]n exercise of the party's option to produce writings”, or “[a]n objection to the particular interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a)(1)-(3).) Each response to interrogatories “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220, subd. (a).)
On receipt of responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the propounding party deems that the responses are “evasive or incomplete,” or if the objections are “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300, subd. (a)(1) & (3).)
“A motion concerning interrogatories … must identify the interrogatories … or requests by set and number.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (d).) Though the separate statement submitted by plaintiff in support of the motion identifies the FI by their number, the memorandum submitted in support of the motion does not identify each FI to which plaintiff seeks to compel a further response. Notwithstanding this procedural deficiency, available information indicates that plaintiff seeks to compel Costco to provide a further response to each of the FI contained within the request. To the extent that plaintiff seeks to compel a further response to less than all of the FI served on Costco, plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to comply with court rules.
In each response to the FI, Costco asserts identical multiple boilerplate objections: “This request is vague and ambiguous. The responding party objects that this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Objection is also made that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection is made that this request is improperly compound. Responding party objects that this request seeks documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client and work product doctrines…, as well as the trade secret privilege. The responding party also objects that this request seeks documents the production of which would violate the privacy rights of third parties.” (Sep. Stmt. at pp. 3, 4, 5-6, 8, 9-10, 11, 12, 14, 15-16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23-24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 38.)
A party’s right to discovery is broad. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 538 (Williams).) “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) A party resisting discovery bears the burden to show cause justifying its objections. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 541, 549; West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 422 (West Pico).)
Costco has not submitted a response to plaintiff’s separate statement “showing facts from which the trial court might find that the interrogatories were interposed for improper purposes” or showing “cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section.” (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220; West Pico, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 422.) In addition, the court has reviewed the FI at issue and does not find them to be vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, or compound.
In addition, “[a] party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citation.] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.) Costco has failed to submit opposition to the motion demonstrating the existence of a legally protected privacy interest or a threatened intrusion into a privacy interest, nor does the court find that the FI implicate privacy interests.
Moreover, “. . .some burden is inherent in all demands for discovery.” (West Pico, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 418.) Accordingly, an objection based on burden “must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” (Id. at p. 417.) Though the court may limit discovery to the extent it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of discovery outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the party opposing discovery “has an obligation to supply the basis for this determination." (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 549; Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431; Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd. (a).) There exists no information showing that the FI at issue are intended to create an unreasonable burden that is not commensurate with the results sought by plaintiff.
By failing to make any attempt to justify its objections to the FI at issue in the present motion, Costco has failed to meet its burden to show cause for its objections. Therefore, with the exception of objections based on privilege, the court will overrule Costco’s objections to FI nos. 1.1, 3.1, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 16.1 through 16.6, 16.9, and 16.10.
Furthermore, Costco has not demonstrated a legally sufficient excuse for failing to provide responses to the FI. (See Petersen v. City of Vallejo (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 757, 781 [party is entitled to demand answers to interrogatories “as a matter of right” unless a valid objection is stated]; Brown v. Superior Court In and For Butte County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 430, 437 [party seeking responses to interrogatories is not required to establish good cause].) Therefore, for all reasons discussed above, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion.
Costco shall provide verified code compliant further responses to plaintiff’s first set of FI nos. 1.1, 3.1, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 16.1 through 16.6, 16.9, and 16.10, without objections except those based on privilege. To the extent Costco asserts a claim of privilege in response to the FI, the further responses ordered herein must include sufficient factual information to enable plaintiff and the court to evaluate the merits of the claim and, if necessary, a privilege log. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1); Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130 [setting forth requirements for a proper privilege log].)
Plaintiff requests that the court impose sanctions in the amount of $4,260 against Costco and its counsel. “The 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 to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) “[A] trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested as a discovery sanction in order to reach a reasonable award.” (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)
Costco has failed to demonstrate any justification for asserting “objections-only” responses to the FI at issue or for failing to respond in substance to the FI. In addition, Costco has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process by making unmeritorious objections without substantial justification. Therefore, an award of sanctions against Costco is warranted to compensate plaintiff for expenses incurred in connection with the present motion.
Notwithstanding that an award of sanctions is justified under the circumstances present here, the court finds that the amount of attorney fees claimed by plaintiff is excessive. The amount of the sanctions needs to reflect the reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the misuse of the discovery process. While the court agrees that plaintiff’s counsel spent time preparing the motion and may spend time to prepare for oral argument, the sanctions requested by plaintiff also include estimated time to review and reply to any opposition which may be filed by Costco. As Costco has not filed opposition to the motion, and under the circumstances present here including the court’s experience with addressing attorney fee issues, the court finds that 7 hours of time for attorney Shamsi at the reasonable hourly rate of $350, for a total of $2,450, constitutes the reasonable amount of attorney fees incurred as a result of the filing of the present motion and Costco’s misuse of the discovery process for which monetary sanctions are appropriately awardable. The court will also award filing fees incurred by plaintiff in the amount of $60.