Case Number: 19STCV01225
Hearing Date: December 11, 2020
County: Los Angeles County
Judicial Officer: Kralik
Word Count: 502

 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiff Virginia Lowe alleges that she was injured on the premises of Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC’s (“99 Cents Only”) store located at 1720 E. Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena. On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff was shopping in the frozen food section of the store when she opened the freezer door, the door came off its hinges, and struck Plaintiff on her forehead, knocking her to the ground. Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants Dover Corporation, Anthony Inc. dba Anthony International, Hill Phoenix, Inc., National Cooler Corporation, and Display Rite Inc. manufactured, designed, supplied, inspected, distributed, sold, etc. the freezer/refrigerator and its component parts.

Plaintiff Eugene Lowe (spouse) alleges a loss of consortium claim against Defendants as a result of the subject incident.

The first amended complaint, filed July 10, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability resulting in personal injury; (3) negligent product liability resulting in personal injury; and (4) loss of consortium.

The dismissal without prejudice of Defendant Dover Corporation was entered on September 18, 2020.

B. Motion on Calendar

On November 11, 2019, Mrs. Lowe filed 3 motion to compel 99 Cents Only Stores’ further responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); (2) Requests for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”); and (3) Requests for Admission, set one (“RFA”).

On December 2 and 5, 2019, 99 Cents Only filed oppositions to the motions.

On December 11, 2019, Mrs. Lowe filed the declaration of Stephen M. Johnson in reply to the opposition.

On January 29, 2020, Judge Jon R. Takasugi of Department 31 (personal injury court) ordered the parties to cooperatively meet and confer to resolve the remaining discovery issues and ordered the parties to provide a concise outline of matters remaining in dispute.

On February 24, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Outline of Items in Dispute as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses.

On November 25, 2020, 99 Cents Only filed a Supplemental Declaration of Mathew S. Shorr. Mr. Shorr provides copies of 99 Cents Only’s responses: supplemental, amended, second, and third supplemental responses to FROG, set one (10/2/19, 11/27/19, 11/27/ 19, 11/23/20); supplemental and more supplemental responses to RFA, set one (11/27/19, 11/23/20); supplemental, second, third, and fourth supplemental responses to RPD, set one (10/28/19, 11/27/20, 8/13/20, 11/23/20). (Shorr Decl., Ex. A.) Thus, he argues that discovery sanctions are not warranted in this case.

DISCUSSION

Based on the supplemental declaration of Mr. Schorr (filed November 25, 2020), it appears that 99 Cents Only has served supplemental responses to the outstanding discovery.

Plaintiffs have not taken the motions off-calendar and have not filed any supplemental papers stating whether the recently served discovery responses are inadequate.

In light of the supplemental responses, the Court will take the motions off-calendar. To the extent that the discovery responses are inadequate, the parties should engage in meet and confer efforts on the supplemental responses and, if necessary, file motions to compel further responses.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the supplemental declaration of Mathew S. Shorr (filed November 25, 2020), it appears that 99 Cents Only has served supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery requests. Thus, the Court takes the motions off-calendar in light of the supplemental responses served on Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.

VIRGINIA LOWE, et al. v. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, LLC, et al.