CA Premises Liability — Interrogatories

Notice -- constructive

Interrogatory 1. Identify all persons employed by defendant who were responsible for inspecting, cleaning, or maintaining [describe specific location] on [date of incident], including their names, job titles, and shift times.

Why it matters: Names the witnesses for deposition; exposes any gap in who was assigned to the area at the relevant time.

Interrogatory 2. State the date and time of the most recent inspection of [specific location] before [time of incident], identify the person who performed that inspection, and describe all conditions observed.

Why it matters: This is the core constructive notice question -- the longer the gap between last inspection and injury, the stronger the Ortega constructive notice showing. The response becomes a key exhibit in the separate statement.

Interrogatory 3. Describe all policies or procedures in effect on [date of incident] governing the frequency of inspections of [area type], and identify any documents that reflect those policies.

Why it matters: Ties to the RFP for inspection policies. If the policy required 30-minute sweeps and the log shows a 2-hour gap, the deviation is admissible as evidence of breach.

Notice -- actual

Interrogatory 4. State whether defendant or any of defendant's employees had received any complaint, report, or notification of a hazardous condition at [specific location] in the two years preceding [date of incident], and if so, describe the nature of the complaint and what action was taken.

Why it matters: A "no" answer locks defendant into a position; a "yes" answer establishes actual notice and may defeat the MSJ outright.

Trivial defect

Interrogatory 5. Describe the dimensions of [specific defect] as known to defendant on [date of incident], including any measurements in defendant's records, and identify all persons with knowledge of those dimensions.

Why it matters: If defendant has no measurement data, it cannot affirmatively prove trivial defect as a matter of law -- the court needs objective evidence under Stathoulis v. City of Montebello, 164 Cal.App.4th 559 (2008), not a conclusory declaration.

Interrogatory 6. State whether [specific defect] was repaired, filled, replaced, or otherwise altered after [date of incident], and if so, identify the date of repair, the person or company who performed the work, and the cost.

Why it matters: Post-incident remediation is admissible to show the condition was known and actionable. The repair record is often the most useful document at the MSJ.

Responding party: scope and precision

Interrogatories about inspection procedures and prior complaints are the most dangerous category for over-broad responses. An interrogatory asking for "all complaints" about the facility -- not just the specific location -- is objectionable as to scope. The decisive issue is notice of this condition at this location. Responses tracking the exact location and time window described in the interrogatory are both legally correct and strategically appropriate.