Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV01468, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01468    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 04-23-25

Case # 23CHCV01468, Barajas, et al. v. Aguayo

Trial Date: 08-11-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Patricia Barajas

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Alex Aguayo

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling defendant Aguayo’s verified, objection-free responses to plaintiff’s second set of requests for production numbers 45-46, 51-56, and 59-60 and awarding $2,925.00 in sanctions.

RULING: The hearing is continued for the parties to meet and confer and prepare a joint statement of remaining issues for the court.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

The personal injury action arises from a two-vehicle collision between Patricia Barajas (Plaintiff) and Alex Aguayo (Defendant) that occurred on May 19, 2023.  Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages from the collision.  On May 19, 2023, plaintiffs Patricia Barajas and Sarah Barajas filed a complaint against Defendant alleging a single motor vehicle cause of action.

On December 18, 2024, Plaintiff served her second set of requests for production (RFPs) on Defendant.  (Declaration of Joshua D. Allton, ¶ 2, Exh. A.)  Plaintiff asserts that Defendant served non-compliant responses on January 17, 2025.  (Allton Dec., ¶ 3, Exh. B.)  After exchanging meet and confer letters, Defendant served supplemental responses on March 10, 2025.  (Allton Dec., ¶ 6.)  However, Defendant did not serve supplemental responses to RFPs 45-46, 51-56, and 59-60.

On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff moved for further responses to RFPs 45-46, 51-56, and 59-60 and $2,925.00 in sanctions.  Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s responses contain boilerplate objections and privilege objections without explaining the scope or justification for the objections. 

On April 9, 2025, Defendant opposed, asserting that it provided code-compliant responses.  Plaintiff’s RFPs are overly broad and vague and seek privileged information.  The parties have met and conferred extensively, and Defendant has provided supplemental responses.  The court should award Defendant $720.00 in sanctions.

On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff replied, asserting that Defendant continues to not justify its privilege objections, that Defendant failed to serve supplemental responses before Plaintiff filed this motion, and that the court should deny Defendant’s sanctions request.

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve issues outside court.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  In Department F43, meet and confer means in person or via phone.  A letter or email does not suffice.  (Department F43 Courtroom Information, p. 2.)  On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff emailed Defendant about meeting and conferring about Defendant’s responses.  (Allton Dec., ¶ 4, Exh. C.)  Defendant responded five days later stating he would serve supplemental responses but none were ever served for RFPs 45-46, 51-56, and 59-60.  (Allton Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. D.)

ANALYSIS

Where responses to requests for production of documents have been served but the demanding party believes that they are deficient because the statement of compliance is incomplete, the representation of an inability to comply is inadequate, evasive, or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  The demanding party must serve the motion within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

The court has reviewed the documents related to this motion and will not decide the motion on the merits.  The parties have not directly met and conferred in person, by telephone, or by video conference.  The parties must meet and confer directly, not by email, to resolve as much as they can.  Further, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues by a date to be set by the court.  The joint statement should briefly describe the matters in dispute, followed by Plaintiff’s arguments, then Defendant’s arguments.

Further, under section 2031.240, subd. (c)(1), Defendant is required to provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of and objection, including a privilege log.  (See Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1126-27, 1130 [requiring privilege log to include “the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document’s date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted”].)

Defendant’s responses do not sufficiently provide this information.

Accordingly, the court orders the parties to meet and confer directly and to file a joint statement.

CONCLUSION

1.  The parties are ordered to conduct a meaningful meet and confer.  The parties must meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference.

2.  The parties shall submit a joint statement of the remaining issues as described above. The format should be as follows: The parties should recite the specific discovery requests at issue, followed by the moving party’s statement of why it should be compelled, followed by the opposing party’s statement of why it should not be compelled. To the extent that an argument is repeated for a subsequent request, the party shall simply refer to the section where the argument was previously made.

3.  The continued hearing and joint status report filing dates will be set at the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Patricia Barajas to give notice.