Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01179367, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Bastan Falsafi’s motion to compel further responses to his requests for production of documents, set one, nos. 1-22, 31-42 from Defendant Autonation, Inc. (“Defendant”) is granted in part.  The motion is granted as to nos. nos. 1-9, 11, 14-16, 18-21, 31, 35, and 38.

When moving to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, the moving party must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) To establish good cause, the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial).  (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

Nos. 10, 12, 13, 17, 22, 32-34, 36-37, and 39-42

in the reply brief, Plaintiff concedes that Defendant has sufficiently supplemented its responses to nos. 10, 12, 13, 17, 22, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 39-42. He withdrew these requests.

Nos. 1-9, 11, 14-16, 18-21, 31, 35, and 38

Defendant’s supplemental responses served on July 31, 2023 to nos. 1-9, 11, 14-16, 18-21, 31, 35, and 38 are still at issue, however.

After asserting objections, Defendant stated that it would comply with the demand, and would produce all non-privileged documents in its possession, custody and control, and then referred to the documents produced by Defendant House of Imports, Inc. noting the bates numbers of the responsive documents.

In its opposition to the motion, Defendant argues that these responses are sufficient, citing to Deyo v. Kilbourne, where the court held that if a question does require the responding party to make reference to a pleading or document, “the pleading or document should be identified and summarized so the answer is fully responsive to the question.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1979) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784.)  Deyo v. Kilbourne is not applicable however, as the court only addressed what constituted proper interrogatory responses.  

There are specific rules that govern responses to document demands.  An agreement to comply with a document demand must state whether the responding party will be complying "in whole or in part." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) In addition, the response must indicate whether any documents are being withheld based on an asserted objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)). When agreeing to produce documents to a request, the responding party must also identify which documents are responsive to which request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).)

On the other hand, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 states:

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.

Defendant’s supplemental responses are not Code-compliant. Defendant cites no authority that permits it to refer to another party’s document production in lieu of providing a proper response. 

As a result, within 10 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to nos. 1-9, 11, 14-16, 18-21, 31, 35, and 38.

Plaintiff is awarded sanctions against Defendant. Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant Autonation, Inc. shall pay $2,760 in sanctions to Workplace Justice Advocates, PLC. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.