Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV34675, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV34675 Hearing Date: August 16, 2024 Dept: 76
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants have conspired to destroy Plaintiffs’ business enterprises through a social media smear campaign which characterizes Plaintiffs as a cult.
Cross-Complainants filed a Cross-Complaint alleging a bevy of claims against Plaintiffs regarding wrongful activities occurring within the church environment.
Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Elisha Priscylla Leigh moves to compel compliance with request for production of documents and sanctions against Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants. The Court continued the hearing on the motion for submission of an omnibus joint separate statement.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Elisha Priscylla Leigh’s motion to compel compliance with request for production of documents against Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants is GRANTED as to Requests For Production Nos. [as applicable to the particular responding party] 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 80, 81, 84, 85.
Responding
parties are to produce responsive documents in accordance with their statement
of compliance. In doing so, responding parties are to identify the requests as
to which the production pertains (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.280) and to the
extent no responsive documents are found, comply with Civ. Proc. Code, §
2031.230. The Court acknowledges the time-intensive task this entails, so
rolling production is acceptable, but it must occur with diligence.
The Court sets a further hearing re: compliance for November 15, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. A further omnibus joint separate statement is due November 1, 2024. While the Court will not increase the monetary sanctions amount at this time, the Court will consider imposing additional monetary sanctions at the further hearing if Responding parties have not produced responsive documents in substantial measure.
ANALYSIS
Motion To Compel Compliance
Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Elisha Priscylla Leigh moves to compel compliance with request for production of documents and sanctions against Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants.
A motion to compel compliance pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.320 does not have a 45-day time limit, nor does it contain a meet and confer requirement or a good cause requirement. However, such a motion is only proper where the responding party represented in its response that it would comply with the request for production and failed to do so. (Civ. Proc. Code., § 2031.320(a).) A proper response to a request for production is “[a] statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling” by the date set forth in Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.030(c)(2)(within a reasonable time, at least 30 days after service of the demand).
Here, moving party did not provide a copy of the requests for production of documents, but indicates that the requests specified a date for production as 30 days from the date of, presumably, service of the responses thereto.
Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.030(c) provides:
(c) Each demand in a set
shall be separately set forth, identified by number or letter, and shall do all
of the following:
. . .
(2) Specify a reasonable time for the
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling that is at least 30 days after
service of the demand, unless the court for good cause shown has granted
leave to specify an earlier date. . . .
(3) Specify a reasonable place for making
the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and performing any related
activity.
. . .
(Civ.
Proc. Code, § 2031.030 [bold emphasis added].)
If
propounding party had specified a date for production, then a statement of
compliance in the responses would have to meet the standard set forth in Civ.
Proc. Code, § 2031.210(a)(1) as follows:
(a) The party to whom a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond
separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:
(1) A statement that the party will comply
with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by
the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant
to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related
activities.
(Civ. Proc Code, § 2031.210(a)(1)[bold emphasis added].)
Although the responses did not explicitly state that production would occur by the date set in the notice, this will be implied from the responses indicating compliance.
Responding
parties apparently produced some documents on June 27, 2024. (Reply, Pages 7:8
– 25.) The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the
completeness of such production relative to each responsive indicating
compliance with the requests. The parties were ordered to submit a joint
omnibus separate statement setting forth the remaining categories in dispute,
and the hearing was continued to this date.
The Court addresses the omnibus joint separate statement filed by the parties on August 2, 2024.
¿ Requests For Production Nos. [as applicable to the particular responding party] 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 80, 81, 84, 85: GRANTED.
Response: “Responding Party will produce all relevant, responsive, non-privileged documents currently in their possession, custody, or control, if any.”
Moving party request that the responding parties produce all responsive documents and comply with Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.230 and § 2031.280(a). The responding parties have not offered any argument why this should not be ordered.
A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.
(Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.230.)
(a) Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.
(b) The
documents shall be produced on the date specified in the demand pursuant to
paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030, unless an objection has
been made to that date. If the date for inspection has been extended pursuant
to Section 2031.270, the documents shall be produced on the date agreed to
pursuant to that section.
(c) If a party responding to a demand for production of electronically stored information objects to a specified form for producing the information, or if no form is specified in the demand, the responding party shall state in its response the form in which it intends to produce each type of information.
(d) Unless the parties otherwise agree or the court otherwise orders, the following shall apply:
(1) If a demand for production does not specify a form or forms for producing a type of electronically stored information, the responding party shall produce the information in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable.
(2) A party need not produce the same electronically
stored information in more than one form.
(e) If necessary, the responding party at the
reasonable expense of the demanding party shall, through detection devices,
translate any data compilations included in the demand into reasonably usable
form.
(Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.280.)
Responding parties are to produce responsive documents in accordance with their statement of compliance. In doing so, responding parties are to identify the requests as to which the production pertains (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.280) and to the extent no responsive documents are found, comply with Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.230. The Court acknowledges the time-intensive task this entails, so rolling production is acceptable, but it must occur with diligence.
The Court
sets a further hearing re: compliance for November 15, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. A
further omnibus joint separate statement is due November 1, 2024. While the Court will not increase the monetary
sanctions amount at this time, the Court will consider imposing additional
monetary sanctions at the further hearing if Responding parties have not
produced responsive documents in substantial measure.