Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV25988, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25988    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This action for denial of medical care and wrongful death arises from the death of Celestina Echesirim (Decedent), who died while in custody inside a jail cell at Lynwood Correctional Facility. This action is brought by Decedent’s successor-in-interest and Decedent’s minor children through a guardian ad litem against County of Los Angeles, Deputy De La Rosa, and Deputy Mercedia Booza. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on November 3, 2022.

            On February 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel Defendant County’s further responses to requests for production, nos. 38 and 40. Defendant filed its opposition on March 13, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their reply on March 19, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).) The party seeking production of documents bears the initial burden of showing good cause through a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Ibid.)

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b), 2033.290(b).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel claims to have met and conferred through a letter attached as Exhibit C to his declaration. (Ogbogu Decl. ¶ 3.) However, the letter contains no mention of RFP No. 38; it only discusses RFP No. 40. (Id., Ex. C.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs did not fully satisfy their meet and confer obligation. However, because only one RFP was affected, and the parties have clearly reached an impasse, the Court will proceed on the merits. 

DISCUSSION

I. RFP No. 38

            RFP No. 38 seeks all evidence of safety checks, including surveillance video, conducted in the 24-hour period surrounding Decedent’s death. There is good cause for this information because Plaintiffs’ claims are based on Defendant’s alleged failure to conduct proper safety checks on Decedent.

            Defendant responded as follows: “Responding Party has already produced non-privileged responsive documents constituting records of Title 15 Safety Checks, including video surveillance thereof performed on Celestina Echesirim during her incarceration and/or detention at the Century Regional Detention Facility, Lynwood Correction Facility, POD 1, Module 1200, Cell 28, from July 18, 2021, through July 19, 2021, in Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control, after a diligent search and inquiry therefor, subject to the operative Protective Order in this matter.” 

Defendant’s response is not code compliant. A statement of compliance “shall state that the production . . . will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) Merely referencing a prior production of an unspecified portion of video footage does not constitute a statement of compliance. Contrary to Defendant’s contention, its response does not confirm that “all” evidence of safety checks in its possession has been produced.   

 To the extent Defendant is unable to produce the responsive information, a statement of inability to comply “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) Defendant’s response confirms a diligent search and inquiry but does not explain the reason for the missing information (lost, destroyed, never existed, etc.) nor does it identify the persons believed to be in possession.

If Defendant is producing some, but not all, of the requested footage, it shall specify which footage is being produced and which footage is not being produced, and explain whether the missing footage was destroyed, lost, never existed, etc. and identify persons believed to be in possession. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

            The motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 38. 

II. RFP No. 40

            RFP No. 40 seeks documents reflecting the identity of the inmate housed in Unit 26 of the Module.

            According to Plaintiffs, surveillance footage near the time of Decedent’s death appears to show that an inmate housed near Decedent’s unit interacted with a guard who then approached Decedent’s unit. (See Ogbogu Decl. ¶ 6(C).) The footage also shows the inmate peering through the window of their cell. (Ibid.) This demonstrates that the inmate in Unit 26 is a potential witness. “The disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essential part of pretrial discovery.” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-50.) Thus, there is good cause to discover the identity of the inmate in Unit 26.

            Defendant argues that Evidence Code section 1041 prohibits disclosure of the inmate’s identity. However, that statute protects informants who report a violation of law to specific persons. (Evid. Code, § 1041(a), (b).) By contrast, the inmate at issue is a pertinent witness in a civil action. Defendant makes no showing that the inmate reported a violation of law to a qualifying person. Additionally, the privilege only applies if (i) disclosure is forbidden by a statute, or (ii) disclosure is against the public interest. (Id., § 1041(a).) Defendant makes neither showing. Even if section 1041 applied, the need for disclosure in this particular case would outweigh the interest in confidentiality. In other words, disclosure is not against public interest. 

            Lastly, Defendant argues that the request is overbroad because hundreds of inmates have resided in Unit 26. The request is limited to the inmate who appears in the referenced video. 

The motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 40, limited to the inmate who appears in the referenced video.  

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Defendant County shall provide further responses within 20 days of this order. Sanctions are denied. 

BACKGROUND

            This action for denial of medical care and wrongful death arises from the death of Celestina Echesirim (Decedent), who died while in custody inside a jail cell at Lynwood Correctional Facility. This action is brought by Decedent’s successor-in-interest and Decedent’s minor children through a guardian ad litem against County of Los Angeles, Deputy De La Rosa, and Deputy Mercedia Booza. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on November 3, 2022.

            On February 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel Defendant County’s further responses to requests for admission. Defendant filed its opposition on March 13, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their reply on March 19, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b), 2033.290(b).) The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Ogbogu Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. C.)

DISCUSSION

I. RFA No. 1 and 5

            RFA No. 1 asks Defendant to admit that Decedent was “grunting and moaning” during the safety checks conducted by Deputy Bautista. RFA No. 5 asks Defendant to admit that Decedent was “grunting and moaning” during a safety check conducted by Deputy Bautista on July 19, 2021 at 5:45am.  

            In response, Defendant admitted that Deputy Bautista authored a draft report stating that Decedent was “grunting and moaning” but ultimately corrected the report to reflect his belief that Decedent was “muttering.” Defendant otherwise denied the requests.

            This is a compliant response. Defendant is entitled to “[a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party,” and “[d]eny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(b).) Defendant answered the RFAs by denying that Decedent was “grunting and moaning” but clarified that Deputy Bautista authored a draft mentioning “grunting and moaning” which he later amended.  

            The motion is DENIED as to RFA Nos. 1 and 5.

II. RFA Nos. 2-4

            RFA Nos. 2-4 ask Defendant to admit that Decedent was “grunting and moaning” at various other dates and times.

            Defendant responded that it “lacks information or knowledge to admit or deny this request. Responding Party made a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the request; however, the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit or deny this matter.” This is a code-compliant response. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(c).)

            The motion is DENIED as to RFA Nos. 2-4.

III. RFA No. 6

            RFA No. 6 asks Defendant to admit that Decedent needed immediate medical care on each occasion that Deputy Bautista conducted a safety check.

            Defendant properly objected to this request as seeking an expert opinion. Defendant also denied the request. Thus, Defendant has completely responded to this request.

            The motion is DENIED as to RFA No. 6.

IV. RFA Nos. 17-19

            RFA Nos. 17-19 ask Defendant to admit that surveillance video showing Module 1200 in the 12-hour period prior to Decedent’s death exists (no. 17), that Defendant failed to produce it (no. 18), and that Defendant destroyed it (no. 19).

            Defendant responded to RFA No. 17 by admitting that footage of certain areas inside Module 1200 exists for a portion of the 12-hour period prior to Decedent’s death. Defendant otherwise denied the request. This is a complete response.

            Defendant responded to RFA No. 18 by admitting that it has produced all footage of Module 1200 in the 12-hour period prior to Decedent’s death that it was able to locate after a diligent search and inquiry. Defendant otherwise denied the request. This is a complete response.

            Defendant responded to RFA No. 19 by admitting that it is not in possession of all footage of Module 1200 during the 12-hour period prior to Decedent’s death. Defendant otherwise denied the request. This is a complete response. 

            The motion is DENIED as to RFA Nos. 17-19.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is DENIED.