Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV33200, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV33200 Hearing Date: January 6, 2023 Dept: 52
Plaintiff Ugo O. Asobie’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses by Defendant Paramount Plaza LLC to Requests
for Production
Plaintiff
Ugo O. Asobie moves to compel further responses by defendant Paramount Plaza
LLC (Paramount) to requests for production Nos. 1-152. After an informal discovery conference and
Paramount’s supplemental responses, plaintiff states the only requests no
longer at issue are Nos. 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, and 32. (Joint Report, p. 3.)
A requesting party may move to compel further
responses if “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a]
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,”
or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2031.310(a).)
Overall, plaintiff’s
requests for production greatly exceed the appropriate burden of discovery in
this case. Courts “shall restrict”
discovery that is “unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the
needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues
at stake in the litigation.” (CCP § 2019.030(a)(2).) Similarly, courts “shall limit the frequency
or extent of discovery of electronically stored information, even from a source
that is reasonably accessible,” if “[t]he likely burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount
in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in
the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the
issues.” (CCP § 2031.310(g)(4).)
Plaintiff
served over 150 requests for production.
Most are quite broad. Some ask
for documents dating back to 2012. The
needs of the case, amount in controversy, and importance of the issues do not
justify the burden and expense of this discovery on Paramount Plaza. Plaintiff alleges numerous defendants,
including over 100 Does, harassed him in a variety of ways because he is a
Black and Nigerian-American tenant.
Plaintiff does not allege that he was actually or constructively evicted
from the property.
Nos. 71-79
all ask for various types of documents related to plaintiff’s complaint “about
the janitors/cleaners not servicing his office on the 13th of July, 2020.” Similarly, Nos. 80-89 ask for documents
related to plaintiff’s complaint “regarding the janitors/cleaners not servicing
his office between on or about 09/04/20 and 09/09/20.” Whether janitors failed to clean plaintiff’s
office for several days in July and September 2020 and how Paramount responded
to those complaints are not major issues in this case. Asking 19 different requests for those
documents is unduly burdensome and unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
Those
requests, among others about plaintiff’s various complaints to Paramount, are
also unreasonably cumulative or duplicative for another reason. Nos. 29 to 37 already asked for all documents
related to all complaints plaintiff made between 2016 and 2022.
Moreover,
many requests do not ask for reasonably particularized categories of
documents. A request for production must
“[d]esignate the documents” to be produced “either by specifically describing
each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of
item.” (CCP § 2031.030(c)(1).) For example, No. 1 asks for “all DOCUMENTS
that contain PLAINTIFF’s name or any alteration of his name.” No. 145 asks for “all DOCUMENTS that relate[]
to any complaints that [were] made to YOU, between 2012 and 2022, by any tenant
of 3550 Wilshire Blvd or 3580 Wilshire Blvd., about any of YOUR employees or
agents.” No. 146 asks for equivalent
documents related to tenant complaints “about any employees and/or agents of”
four other entities and co-defendants.
Those
are not reasonably particularized categories.
The requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Those categories would
include vast numbers of completely irrelevant documents.
No.
90 asks for “any and all DOCUMENTS that relate[] to any and all issues that the
night cleaning staff had with PLAINTIFF.” Nos. 91-99 ask for other categories of
documents related to “any and all issues that the night cleaning staff had with
PLAINTIFF.” The phrase “any and all
issues” is so vague that Paramount cannot reasonably respond.
Of
plaintiff’s numerous arguments in support of his motion, the court finds only
one has merit. To many requests (Nos. 31, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42-45, 53-60, 63, 64, 66-68,
73-77, 82, 83, 85-87, 92, 93, 95-97, 103, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112-114, 119,
120, 122-124, 127-136, 141), gave improper responses. Paramount responded both by objecting “to the
extent that [they call] for the disclosure of any information or documents
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine,
or any other privileges or immunities,” but also that, after a diligent search
and reasonable inquiry, defendant could not comply because “the requested
documents have never existed.”
The two portions of that response are
incompatible. Generally, a responding
party who objects must “[i]dentify with particularity any document … falling
with the category… to which an objection is being made” and “[s]et forth
clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.” (CCP § 2031.240(b)(1) & (2).) If the “documents have never existed” and
defendant did not identify any documents being withheld, then the objections do
not apply.
Furthermore, objecting based on “any other
privileges or immunities” does not set forth any “specific ground for” the
objection.
Defendant Paramount Plaza LLC’s objections to
requests for production Nos. 31, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42-45, 53-60, 63, 64, 66-68, 73-77, 82, 83, 85-87,
92, 93, 95-97, 103, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112-114, 119, 120, 122-124, 127-136,
141 are overruled.
Compelling further responses to those requests,
however, serves no purpose. The
objections are overruled, but the substantive responses—defendant is unable to
comply because the documents have never existed (CCP § 2031.230)—stand. Defendant need not serve further supplemental
responses merely to delete the objections but otherwise repeat the same
responses.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Ugo A. Asobie’s motion to compel further responses by defendant Paramount Plaza
LLC to requests for production Nos. 1-152 is granted
in part only as to Paramount Plaza
LLC’s objections to Nos. 31,
35, 36, 39, 40, 42-45, 53-60, 63, 64, 66-68, 73-77, 82, 83, 85-87, 92, 93,
95-97, 103, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112-114, 119, 120, 122-124, 127-136, 141. Those objections are overruled. As discussed above, the court
does not order Paramount Plaza LLC to serve further responses.
The
remainder of the motion is denied.