Derek Lowe v. Sierra Corporate Management Inc.

CASE NO.: 24STCV29439 PLAINTIFF DEREK LOWE'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT LARRY METHVIN INSTALLATIONS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, AND TO COMPEL FURTHER PMQ DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Derek Lowe RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Larry Methvin Installations, Inc.

I. INTRODUCTION

This action arises from injuries sustained from a glass shower door in an apartment unit at 422 South Lake Street. On July 29, 2026, Plaintiff, Derek Lowe, filed this motion to compel Defendant, Larry Methvin Installations, Inc., to provide the following: (1) further responses and production to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two; (2) further responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set Two; (3) a person most qualified (PMQ) for further deposition testimony. Plaintiff does not request sanctions.

On August 12, 2026, Defendant filed an opposition. On August 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a reply.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Requests for Production of Documents ("RFP")

Plaintiff seeks further responses to RFP Nos. 19, 21, 22, 26, and 27. After reviewing the RFPs at issue and Defendant's responses, the court finds good cause exists to compel further responses. Defendant improperly limited its substantive answers to the subject property and asserted meritless objections. Defendant's responses to these RFPs may lead to evidence of Defendant's notice of prior shower door issues, which would bear upon causation and foreseeability. Consistent with Plaintiff's proposal when attempting to informally resolve the dispute, the court will limit the RFPs to prior incidents in California only, in a ten-year period before the incident," meaning "complaints, incidents, and reports of shower door shatters, from January 1, 2012, onward, limited to California only."

B. Special Interrogatories ("SROG")

Plaintiff seeks further responses to SROG Nos. 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, and 37. Similar to the RFPs discussed above, Defendant improperly limited its substantive answers to the subject property, asserted meritless objections, and inserted irrelevant and nonresponsive information. The court finds further responses are warranted. Consistent with Plaintiff's proposal when attempting to informally resolve the dispute, the court will limit these SROGs to prior incidents in California only, in a ten-year period before the incident," meaning "complaints, incidents, and reports of shower door shatters, from January 1, 2012, onward, limited to California only."

C. PMQ Deposition

Plaintiff seeks the following order in connection to a further deposition of Defendant's PMQ: (1) PMQ testimony regarding prior similar incidents (Category Nos. 22, 23, 24, and part of Category 14), as well as claims, lawsuits, and reports; (2) production of a PMQ to testify regarding shower door installation and training practices (Category Nos. 3, 4, 7); (3) Conduct a reasonable inquiry to identify the foremen and lead installers involved in or responsible for the 2017 project at 422 South Lake Street and produce any identified current employees or agents for deposition; (4) directing Defense counsel during any further deposition, to limit interruptions that are argumentative, suggestive speaking objections in deposition and to refrain from supplying testimony, and allow the witness to answer for herself.

Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant's PMQ, Traci Jones, on June 29, 2026. At the deposition, Defense counsel stated that the prior similar incidents categories would be limited to "this current project, this current location, and this current dispute." Like the RFPs and SROGS that are the subject of this motion, Defendants improperly limited the scope of the prior similar incidents categories. Ms. Jones also testified that she was aware of at least one 2021 lawsuit regarding a shattering glass door.

Defense counsel did not permit Ms. Jones to answer further questions about that lawsuit. It was also clear that Ms. Jones was the PMQ for the shower door installation and training practices. Ms. Jones could not identify Defendant's foremen nor lead installers. Defense counsel also appeared to hinder the conduct of the deposition and, at times, engaged in improper argument with Plaintiff's counsel, or interjected on behalf of Ms. Jones. For these reasons, the court will grant the requested relief.

III. CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED. Within 30 days of this order, Defendant is ordered to do the following:

1. Serve further verified responses to Plaintiff's RFP Nos. 19, 21, 22, 26, and 27 and SROG Nos. 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 36, and produce responsive documents and information without limiting its responses to the subject property. Defendant's search should encompass California installations from January 1, 2012, to the present involving sliding glass shower or tub enclosures and substantially similar reports/incidents of shower door shatters/spontaneous breakage events;

2. Produce one or more PMQs to testify regarding prior and subsequent similar complaints, incidents, claims, lawsuits, and reports, including the 2021 shattered-glass-door incident identified by Ms. Jones already in deposition;

3. Produce a PMQ to testify regarding Defendant's training provided to its installers for shower door systems like the one installed in Plaintiff's unit;

4. Conduct a reasonable inquiry to identify the foremen and lead installers involved in or responsible for the 2017 project at 422 South Lake Street and produce any identified current employees or agents for deposition.

Further, during any further deposition, Defense counsel is ordered to limit interruptions that are argumentative or suggestive speaking objections in deposition, to refrain from supplying testimony, and to allow the witness to answer. Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

Dated: August 26, 2026 ¿ | ¿ Brock T. Hammond¿¿ ¿ Judge of the Superior Court¿ | Case Number: 24STCV30969 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 407 Tentative Ruling Judge Brock T. Hammond, Department 407 HEARING DATE: August 26, 2026 TRIAL DATE: April 26, 2027 CASE: Dennis J. Stankie v. Pro Tow & Transport Inc., et al.