ALVIN DANDAN ET AL VS. BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, October 8, 2025, line 7, PLAINTIFF ALVIN DANDAN AS SUCCESSOR IN THE INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF CORAZON DANDAN, RENATO DANDAN, RICARDO DANDAN, DANILO DANDAN, CARMELITA ESGUERRA, NICANOR DANDAN, REYNALDO DANDAN Notice Of Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production, Set One (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)

Plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to their requests for production, set one, is granted. Plaintiffs allege that defendant's defective (a) fare gates and (b) platform design and employee negligence were a substantial factor in causing their decedent's death. Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery that "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (CCP 2017.010.)

Plaintiffs' initial requests 4, 6, 7, 8, 11-15, 25-26, 30, and 42, which were not limited in time and pertained to all BART stations, were overbroad. Plaintiffs subsequently agreed to limit these requests to five years (1/1/19 to 12/31/24) and eight stations (Powell Street BART Station; West Oakland; 12th St. Oakland City Center; 19th St. Oakland; MacArthur; 24th St. Mission; Civic Center/ UN Plaza; and Coliseum Station.) Plaintiffs also proposed refinements of certain definitions to limit the scope of discovery. (Montiel Decl., Ex. E [7/8/25 letter].)

The court concludes that the requests at issue, as modified by Plaintiffs in informal resolution efforts, seek discoverable information. In Morlin v. State of California (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 812, 817, the court held that incidents at other DMV locations were discoverable where the other locations had similar layouts. The same is true here. Defendant fails to show that the BART platforms or gates are markedly different from station to station. For example, there is no argument that some platforms have barriers while others do not. "Their relevance would be based on the fact that the state knew or should have known of the unusual risk associated with DMV parking lots." (Id.)

Here, too, incidents at other stations with the same fare gates and lack of barriers as the station where Plaintiffs' decedent was killed are potentially admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The court orders defendant to produce responsive documents to the RFPs at issue within 15 days of notice of entry of the order. If discovery is voluminous, defendant may make a rolling production but shall complete production within 60 days of notice of entry of the order.