Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This action arises out of a car accident.  Plaintiff Matthew Winter’s car was struck by a car driven by Defendant Asaf Glazer (“Moving Defendant”), who was attempting to make a left turn from a private driveway.  Plaintiff alleges Glazer carelessly and negligent struck his car which was proceeding straight and had the right of way.   

At the time of the accident, Plaintiff claims Glazer was performing job duties for the joint business venture between Defendants David Asulin, JRG Realtors, Inc. and Mr. Build Home Improvement Company.  Plaintiff alleges these Defendants are vicariously liable for the actions of Glazer.   

Moving Defendant propounded Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) (“2nd RFPs”) for Plaintiff’s cell phone records on the day of the accident.  (Ex. A to Nguyen Decl.)  Plaintiff objected to the 2nd RFPs.   

The Court vacated Moving Defendant’s first motion to compel responses to the 2nd RFPs based on discussions at an informal discovery conference (“IDC”).  The Court denied Moving Defendant’s second motion to compel because he failed to file a joint statement.   

This hearing is on Moving Defendant’s third motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to the 2nd RFPs.  Moving Defendant argues that the 2nd RFPs seek relevant documents, and Plaintiff’s responses are evasive and not code-compliant.  Moving Defendant also seeks sanctions in the amount of $3,400 for Plaintiff’s alleged discovery abuses.           

MEET AND CONFER 

On February 9, 2024, Moving Defendant sent a meet and confer letter, detailing his supporting authorities and arguments. The letter urged Plaintiff to meet and confer via phone call or videoconference to resolve the parties’ discovery dispute.  Plaintiff did not respond. (Ex. C to Nguyen Decl.)   

Between February 9 to February 21, 2024, Moving Defendant reached out to Plaintiff multiple times via phone calls.  However, Plaintiff did not respond. (Nguyen Decl.; ¿5). On February 21, 2024, Moving Defendant reached out to Plaintiff via email, but Plaintiff told Moving Defendant to schedule an IDC. (Ex. D to Nguyen Decl.).  

On March 11, 2024, Moving Defendant scheduled an IDC and filed the motion to compel to comply with the timing requirement. (Nguyen Decl. ¿7).  On April 24, 2024, the parties attended an IDC.  The court agreed with Moving Defendant’s position and advised Plaintiff to provided further responses. The Court vacated the motion to compel but permitted Moving Defendant to file it again if necessary.  According to Defendant, the parties agreed to further limit Plaintiff's cell phone records to 30 minutes before and 30 minutes after the subject incident. (Ex. E to Nguyen Decl.)  Plaintiff contends the agreement was only to provide telephone calls and text messages from thirty (30) minutes before the 8:46 a.m. car accident.  (Mihalic Decl. ¶17.)   

After the IDC, Moving Defendant reached out to Plaintiff who represented that he would provide further responses.  (Nguyen Decl. ¿9). On May 9 and 14, 2024, Moving Defendant reached out to Plaintiff to follow up.  However, Plaintiff did not provide further responses. (Ex. F to Nguyen Decl.).  

On May 24, 2024, after 30 days without further responses, Moving Defendant filed a second motion to compel, which the Court denied because it did not include a joint statement.  In between the filing and denial of the second motion, Plaintiff served further responses which state in part: “Plaintiff will not comply with this demand because Plaintiff does not possess any responsive documentation within his custody, care, and control.  No documents will be produced.”  (Ex. G to Nguyen Decl.) 

Moving Defendant has now filed a third motion to compel, with the required joint statement.  As of the filing of his motion, Moving Defendant has not received Plaintiff’s cell phone records.    

LEGAL STANDARD 

A¿motion¿to¿compel further responses¿to a¿document request¿is proper where the statement of compliance is incomplete, or a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, evasive and/or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 (a).) The motion must show good cause to justify the discovery and must be supported by a meet and confer declaration. (Id. at subd. (b).) 

The scope of discovery is liberally construed in favor of disclosure “as a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 377-378.)  The broad scope of permissible discovery includes “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff argues that Moving Defendant’s motion to compel is untimely.  The Court disagrees.  Moving Defendant’s deadline to file a motion to compel was July 16, 2024.  Defendant filed a motion to compel on May 24, 2024.  While the Court denied the motion for failing to comply with pre-filing requirements, it was without prejudice to Moving Defendant’s renewing the motion which Moving Defendant has now done.   

However, Moving Defendant has not shown good cause for the discovery he seeks.  A motion to compel production of documents must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.  (Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450(b)(1).)  A showing of good cause must be supported by admissible evidence, such as declarations.¿(Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-224.)  Declarations in support of the good cause requirement must contain “specific facts rather than mere conclusions”.¿(Rutter Group,¿Civil Procedure Before Trial, Chapter 8H-8, Section 8:1495.7, citing¿Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1138, 1141.)  Once a showing of good cause is met, it is then the responding party’s burden to justify the objections asserted.  (Kirkland v. Superior Court¿(2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) 

Moving Defendant’s declaration does not state specific facts supporting a good cause showing.  In any event, even assuming good cause was shown, Moving Defendant does not explain why Plaintiff’s response that he has no documents to produce is evasive and not code-compliant.  As the Court denies Moving Defendant’s motion to compel, it concludes there is no basis for his request for sanctions.   

The Court also denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, as it does not conclude Moving Defendant’s motion to compel was made without substantial justification.  (Code Civ Proc., § 2023.040.)  Plaintiff seeks fees relating to a prior motion to compel, but the Court did not deny that motion on its merits.  Plaintiff also seeks fees relating to the instant motion, but while the Court concludes there is no good cause, it cannot say Defendant’s motion was without substantial justification.  There appears to be a dispute between the parties on the actual agreement reached at the IDC.  According to Defendant, Plaintiff agreed to produce cell phone records 30 minutes before and 30 minutes after the car accident.  Assuming this is correct, Plaintiff did not fully comply with the purported agreement by merely searching for records of calls before the accident.  There was therefore a good faith basis for the instant motion to compel.    

 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two).    

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 24, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court