Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV02432, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02432    Hearing Date: June 11, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 6-11-24

Case #23CHCV02432 , Juan Parra Ospina vs. Dana Smaldino-Holroyd

Trial Date: 3-17-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIN

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Dana Smaldino-Holroyd

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Juan Parra Ospina

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff’s further response to Defendant’s request for production, as well as sanctions.

RULING: Motion to compel further responses is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This case involves a motor vehicle collision between Plaintiff Juan Parra Ospina (Plaintiff) and Defendant Dana Smaldino-Holroyd (Defendant). Defendant propounded discovery requests, and including requests for production, on Plaintiff on December 18, 2023. After Defendant gave Plaintiff a couple of extensions to respond, Plaintiff served his responses on February 15, 2024.

On March 12, 2024, counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s responses. On March 28, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel provided further responses to the discovery. Defendant indicates that Plaintiff did not provide a further response to Request for Production No. 27, the request at issue in this motion.

Counsel for Defendant attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel regarding Plaintiff’s response to Request for Production No. 27 on three different occasions, but did not hear back from Plaintiff’s counsel. On April 17, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel further response with a request for sanctions in the amount of $615.

Request for Production No. 27 reads as follows:

Request for Production No. 27:

            Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS which reflect any and all cellular telephone calls made by YOU on the date of the INCIDENT.

DOCUMENT or DOCUMENTS means a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and includes the original or copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photocopying, photographing, and every other means of recorded upon any tangible thing and form of communicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, symbols or combinations of them.

YOU or YOUR includes you, your agents, your employees, your insurance companies, their agents, their employees, your attorneys, your accountants, your investigators, and anyone else acting on your behalf.

INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events surrounding the September 11, 2022 accident, damage, loss or other occurrence giving rise to this action or proceeding. Whenever the term "INCIDENT" is used, it refers to the September 11, 2022 incident referred to in YOUR Complaint

Response/Further Response to Request for Production No. 27:

            Objection. The demand calls for information not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. Deaile v. Gen’l Telephone, 40 Cal App. 3d 841 (1974).

Objection. The demand seeks information which is protected from disclosure by the attorney’s work product privilege. Brown v. Superior Court, 218 Cal. 2d 430 (1963).

Objection. The interrogatory is overly broad and remote and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor is it calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CBS v. Superior Court, 263 Cal. App. 2d 12 (1968).

Objection. The demand invades Responding Party’s right of privacy, is impermissible overly broad therefore oppressive, burdensome, and irrelevant to the subject matter of this action.

Objection. The interrogatory is oppressive and burdensome because it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible so as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the question.

            The Parties’ Arguments

In his motion, Defendant argues that the information sought is pertinent and that Defendant has meet his meet and confer obligations. Defendant also argues that sanctions are appropriate.

Plaintiff argues in his opposition that he met his statutory obligations with his objections to Defendant’s Request No. 27. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s request is overbroad and seeks information that goes beyond the scope of this matter, and that the request violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Finally, Plaintiff argues that sanctions should not be imposed against him, and instead, sanctions should be imposed against Defendant.

In his reply, Defendant argues that the information sought is relevant and likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Next, Defendant argues that disclosure serves a legitimate and countervailing interest. Also in his reply, Defendant brings up that he offered to limit the scope of the discovery request of phone records to 15 minutes before the incident and 15 minutes after the incident. He made this offer during in his March 12 meet and confer letter. Finally, Defendant argues that sanctions should not be imposed against him for Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer.

ANALYSIS

The Discovery Act allows “[a]ny party [to] obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents . . . and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a).) The demanding party may designate the documents sought “by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” (CCP § 2031.030(c)(1).) The responding party must then “respond separately to each item or category of item” with an agreement to comply, representation of inability to comply, or an objection. (CCP § 2031.210.) If the demanding party deems that “(1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” (2) “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.” (3) “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general,” the demanding party may seek an order compelling code-complaint responses. (CCP § 2030.310(a).)

Next, CCP § 2031.240 states that two requirements must be satisfied for a responding party to properly object to a demand. First, a party must “[i]dentify with particularity any document, [or] tangible thing . . . to which an objection is being made.” (CCP § 2031.240(b)(1).) Second, a party must “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.” (CCP § 2031.240(b)(2).)

To the extent that Plaintiff has objected to Request No. 27 because it is overbroad and therefore violates Plaintiff’s privacy, the Court agrees. Seeking records for all calls on the date of the incident is overbroad. However, Defendant indicates in his reply that he made an attempt to limit the scope of the request by limiting it to calls 15 minutes before the incident and 15 minutes after the incident. While this would be a much more reasonable request, that is not what the request says, nor did Plaintiff give any indication in his opposition that he knew about Defendant’s offer to limit the scope of the request. The Court will note, though, that the meet and confer letter attached as Exhibit E to Defendant’s motion to compel further response does mention the 15 minutes on either side of the incident offer.

Based on this, the Court grants Defendant motion to compel further response to Request No. 27, but only for call records 15 minutes before the incident and 15 minutes after the incident. Plaintiffs’ call records are relevant to demonstrate whether Plaintiff was on the phone at the time of the incident. Additionally, Defendant’s use of responsive material will be limited to determining whether Plaintiff was on the phone at the time of the incident, subject to a later showing of good cause to allow Defendant to contact any individuals who might have been talking to Plaintiff at the time

Because Plaintiff was justified in objecting to Defendant’s request on the basis that it was overbroad, no sanctions will be imposed on either party.

ORDER

1.      Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production No. 27 is granted, but only for call records 15 minutes before the incident and 15 minutes after the incident.

2.      Plaintiff’s further response to this request is due within 30 days.

3.      Moving party to give notice.