Legal Standard

 

If a party to whom a request for production is directed fails to serve a response that is code complaint, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) Depending on the type of objection served in response to discovery, a CCP section 2013.240 specifies that “[T]he response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category” or “the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) Once the moving party has established good cause by a fact-specific showing of relevance, the burden shifts to the opposing party to justify his objection. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

 

Discussion

 

The RFPs at issue are the following:

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:  Please produce any and all Tree Risk Assessments of Bradford Pear trees performed by WCA for any client prior July 24, 2018 (Responding Party may redact identifying client information from any document produced)

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:  Please produce all DOCUMENTS in Responding Party’s possession and control including, but not limited to, tree assessment reports, White Papers, recommendation reports, newsletters, training manuals, training handouts, PowerPoint presentations, etc., wherein Responding Party discusses the structural characteristics of the Bradford Pear tree species.

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:  Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS in Responding Party’s possession and control supporting Responding Party’s contention that Propounding Party is not entitled to equitable indemnity from Responding Party for claims arising out of plaintiff’s complaint.

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:  Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS in Responding Party’s possession and control supporting Responding Party’s contention that Propounding Party is not entitled to express contractual indemnity from Responding Party for claims arising out of plaintiff’s complaint.

 

In sum, the RFPs seek all Tree Risk Assessments of Bradford Pear Trees (the subject type of tree) for any client before July 24, 2018, all documents for any client wherein WCA discussed the structural characteristics of the tree type, all documents pertaining, effectively, to the issue of WCA’s affirmative defenses.  

 

The City moves for an order requiring WCA to provide further responses and production to numbers 6, 12, 15, and 16 because the responses only contain objections (vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome), do not identify whether any responsive documents existed or not, do not identify any document falling within any objection, no provide a privilege log or identification of privileged documents. (Motion p. 4)[1]

 

A. RFPs 6 and 12

 

i. Whether the Discovery is Relevant?

 

The City explains that assessments and communications with other customers about the tree type are relevant because some arborists have advised public entities to remove this tree species because of their propensity to become poorly structured. (Separate Statement p. 3.) Thus, as an expert in the arboreal community, WCA likely had knowledge of the hazards, perhaps advised other clients/customers such that WCA should have also communicated that information with the City. (Separate Statement p. 2.)

 

Therefore, the nature of the discovery is relevant.

 

ii. Whether the Discovery is Overbroad?

 

WCA maintains that the breadth of discovery is overbroad. Indeed, seeking documents going back 10 years from multiple counties/cities is broad because “structural characteristics of a tree can vary depending on geographical location, climate, and environmental conditions such as light and temperature.” (Macias Decl., ¶5.) It is well known that climate conditions ten years ago are different than they are today with record-shattering temperatures (megafires, driest three-year period on record). Not only are climate conditions different between California’s counties and cities, but even far different between Arizona and California.

 

Therefore, RFPs 6 and 12 are modified wherein WCA is to provide documents for the past 4 years in the cities adjacent to Diamond Bar: Rowland Heights, Walnut, Pomona, Chino, San Dimas, and La Verne.[2]

 

iii. Whether the Discovery is Unduly Burdensome? 

 

As for the objection that it would be unduly burdensome (as is the standard), “it must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.” (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417; see also Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 428.)

 

Here, there is insufficient evidence that the discovery is unduly burdensome because for one, the court is tailoring the RFPs 6 and 12 (limited cities and years). Second, as noted by the City in Reply, WCA maintains electronic files; thus, word-search tools can be employed to search the electronic files. (Reply p. 4.)[3] Third, this is not a situation wherein it will take weeks or months or extensive manpower to locate the relevant records; just “multiple” employees approximately five to ten business days. (Opp. p. 7.)

 

Therefore, as the assessment reports can be identified with some time and some search (which is but the very minimum expected of discovery), the court does not find the discovery is unduly burdensome.

 

B. RPFs 15 and 16

 

Turning to RFPs 15 and 16, the court agrees with WCA that they are akin to improperly asking a party to produce everything a responding party has in its possession such that they are not discoverable. (Opp. p. 9.)[4]

 

First, though the City maintains it has requested specific documents, the request’s phrasing itself contradicts that demand: it is requesting all documents that relate to the matter. Seeking everything and anything is not particular. A requesting party must “reasonably particularize each category of item.” (Calcor, supra, fn. 4, at p. 221, 222.) To the extent that the City attempts to distinguish the facts of this case from Calcor on the grounds that Calcor involved discovery propounded upon a nonparty, the distinction is inapposite as the case also addressed records sought by a party. ([“Both sections 220 (dealing with inspection demands on nonparties) and 2031 (dealing with inspection demands on parties) require records sought to be produced be designated “either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.”].)[5]  

 

Here, however, the production is sought without any adequate identification of the document sought to, leaving WCA to guess what documents they are to produce. In fact, this “produce everything in your possession” approach is akin to a detailed pre-trial brief requesting WCA to identify all of the evidence that it intends to rely on and to marshal the facts to the City’s defenses; it is not WCA’s responsibility to create the City’s case.

 

Therefore, absent any instructive authority from the City, the court DENIES the RFPs as to Nos. 15 and 16.

 

C. Monetary Sanctions

 

As for monetary sanctions, as both parties attended and IDC and have attempted to meet and confer in good faith, no monetary sanctions are imposed on either party.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted in part (6 and 12, limited to 4 years to the cities of Rowland Heights, Walnut, Pomona, Chino, San Dimas, and La Verne) and denied in part (15 and 16 denied in their entirety).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---