Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV06154, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06154    Hearing Date: October 24, 2024    Dept: 55

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

The Court is disappointed that Defendant makes no mention in its opposition of the IDC the Court held with the parties in August regarding these document requests. The purpose of the IDC process is to prevent costly litigation over issues that can be resolved informally. Defendant’s counsel told the Court at the IDC that Defendant would produce documents responsive to the requests at issue. Plaintiff’s motion contends that Defendant’s counsel never got back to Plaintiff’s counsel after the IDC and Plaintiff’s counsel’s follow up email. Plaintiff therefore had no choice but to file the motion to compel further responses. Defendant does not dispute this recitation of events in the opposition; Defendant does not even mention them. This record reflects that Defendant did not take the IDC process seriously. Defendant’s disregard of the IDC process has now resulted in costly and avoidable litigation, the exact outcome the IDC process is designed to prevent.  

Contrary to Defendant’s contention, the boilerplate objections are not well-taken other than the fact that some of the requests are overbroad.  The Court also notes that some of the responses are not code compliant with CCP Section 2031.230 and 2031.220. The motion to compel further responses is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

Nos. 1, 3-29 -The boilerplate objections are not well-taken. Defendant must provide verified supplemental response that are code compliant under CCP Section 2031.230 and/or 2031.220. Defendant must also produce all responsive documents and, if withholding any documents based on privilege, produce a privilege log.

RFP Nos. 30 and 31- The overbreadth objection is well-taken and the requests must be limited to vehicles purchased in California that are the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle. The other boilerplate objections are not well-taken. Defendant must provide verified supplemental responses, based on that limitation, that are code compliant with CCP Section 2031.230 and/or 2031.220 and produce all responsive documents. To the extent Defendant is withholding documents based on privilege, Defendant must produce a privilege log.

RFP No. 2 seeks all documents related to the affirmative defenses. The response is adequate and thus no further response is required.

The supplemental responses and document production are due 14 days from the hearing date of this motion.