Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-1194911, Date: 2022-10-07 Tentative Ruling

The motion of plaintiff Pete Deutschman for an order compelling defendant Tesla, Inc. to serve a further response responsive to his first set of requests for production and to produce responsive documents is MOOT in part, GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

With regard to request numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 26, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 48, the motion is moot as responses were provided.  The objections contained in these responses were not waived as they were provided timely based upon the two-day extension for electronic service per Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).

With regard to request numbers 12 and 14 (having to do with the plaintiff’s specific project) the court finds that the showing of good cause, although meager, is sufficient and orders an additional response served within 15 days.

With regard to the remaining requests, plaintiff fails to provide “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought” as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b).  Thus, the court declines to order further responses to these requests.

With regard to plaintiff’s request for sanctions, the court will order defendant to pay sanctions of $1,000 to plaintiff because defendant originally provided objection-only responses and did not supplement those responses until a motion was filed.  (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4^th 424, 434 (“[I]t is a ‘central precept’ of the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 that discovery ‘be essentially self-executing’”)).  The court limits the sanctions ordered because the ruling on the motion itself was a split decision.  Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied because the portion of the ruling in defendant’s favor was accounted for in the reduction of sanctions awarded to plaintiff.

The moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.