CA Premises Liability — Requests for Production

Organized by decisive issue. Each request is paired with what the document does to the MSJ record.

Notice (actual and constructive)

RFP 1. All incident reports, accident reports, or customer complaint records relating to [describe specific location] for the three-year period preceding [date of incident].

Why it matters: Prior incidents establish actual notice and defeat the "no prior complaints" showing. They also show whether defendant's inspection protocol was adequate.

RFP 2. All inspection logs, sweep logs, cleaning logs, or maintenance records for [specific location] for the 72-hour period preceding [date of incident].

Why it matters: Inspection frequency and recency are the core of constructive notice analysis under Ortega v. Kmart, 26 Cal.4th 1200 (2001). Gaps in the log or long intervals between sweeps are the plaintiff's best evidence.

RFP 3. All surveillance footage from cameras covering [specific location] for the period from [4 hours before incident] to [2 hours after incident], and all records relating to any footage that no longer exists (deletion logs, overwrite schedules, retention policies).

Why it matters: Footage either shows the condition's duration or documents its absence -- and spoliation is a separate motion if footage was destroyed after the incident.

RFP 4. All policies, procedures, or training materials governing inspection and maintenance of [area type] in effect as of [date of incident].

Why it matters: Deviation from defendant's own inspection policy eliminates the "reasonable care" defense.

Trivial defect

RFP 5. All photographs, videos, or measurements of [describe specific defect] taken at any time before or after [date of incident].

Why it matters: Defendant's own documentation of the defect's dimensions is the most credible evidence -- more than plaintiff's reconstructed photos. A repair record showing the defect was fixed post-incident is admissible circumstantial evidence of notice.

RFP 6. All repair records, work orders, or contractor invoices relating to [specific location or defect] for the three-year period preceding [date of incident].

Why it matters: Pre-incident repair records show defendant knew the condition existed. A repaired-but-recurrent defect defeats the trivial defect defense.

Contractor and recreational exclusions

RFP 7 (Privette doctrine -- contractor employee): All contracts, work orders, invoices, and payment records between defendant and [plaintiff's employer] in effect on [date of incident], including any certificates of insurance, indemnity agreements, and records showing which entity directed and controlled plaintiff's work.

Why it matters: Under Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), a hirer of an independent contractor is generally not liable for injuries to the contractor's employees. The threshold question is whether defendant retained control over the work (Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation, 27 Cal.4th 198 (2002)). These records establish the scope of the relationship and whether any retained-control exception applies.

RFP 8 (§ 846 -- recreational immunity): All documents relating to any fee charged for admission to, or use of, [describe recreational area] on [date of incident], and all records of any express invitation extended to plaintiff.

Why it matters: The fee or express invitation breaks recreational immunity under Civil Code § 846. Ticket stubs, event records, or promotional materials showing an express invitation are the targets.

Responding party: scope and precision

Notice is one of the decisive issues here -- expect requests targeting every inspection log, maintenance record, and incident report for the entire facility. The scope question is precision: records for the specific area where plaintiff fell, for a reasonable time window before the incident. Facility-wide productions on a single-area case invite expensive review on documents that will not be used at the motion.