Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2022-1248387, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Defendant, Shafi Afridi’s (“Defendant”) Further Responses to Request for Production (“RFP”), Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, is GRANTED.

Further responses, without objections, are to be provided within 20 days.

The moving papers show that on May 27, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendant with RFP, Set One.  Defendant failed to provide timely responses.  As discovery responses were not timely served, all objections were waived.  (CCP § 2031.300(a).)  Responses were served one year later -- on May 25, 2022.

Defendant’s responses to the at-issue RFP are not code-compliant.  They do not clearly state that Defendant will comply with the particular request or that Defendant is unable to comply.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a.)  Further, the implied representations of inability to comply do not affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)  The responses also improperly assert waived objections.

Plaintiff has set forth good cause justifying the discovery sought by the RFP at issue.  As Plaintiff notes, each of the requests is tied directly to an obligation under the Immigration Consultant Act that is enforceable in an action for injunctive relief under Section 22446.5(b) of the Business and Professions Code.  Thus, the Court finds the RFP are generally tailored to the claims and defenses in this litigation.

Defendant’s argument regarding overbreadth is not well-taken as Defendant waived all objections, including those based on overbreadth, due to the untimely responses.  Even if objections had not been waived, Defendant failed to meet her burden to justify the objections or failure fully to answer the discovery requests.  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

However, given that privacy rights of Defendant’s customers may be implicated by at least some of the RFPs, the Court will require the parties to meet and confer on an appropriate protective order.  A stipulated protective order will assuage Defendant’s concerns regarding privacy.  Further, Plaintiff indicates in its reply that it is willing to accept documents under such order.

Accordingly, the Motion is granted.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding entry of an appropriate stipulated protective order.  No documents need be produced until such order is in place.

The Court finds that, under the circumstances here, sanctions are warranted against Defendant and her counsel of record.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(h).)  However, the Court finds that a reduced amount of $2,500 is appropriate.  Accordingly, monetary sanctions of $2,500 are imposed against Defendant and her counsel of record, Majid Safaie, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel of record within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.