Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV25905, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25905    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Danny Luna’s Motion to Compel Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Compliance with June 29, 2022 Order is GRANTED in part, and Defendant is directed to provide a further verified response to Requests for Production No. 45 and 46 within 10 days.

I.                   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER – PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

“A party may demand that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand 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, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

A motion to compel a further response to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 444.) Once the moving party demonstrates good cause for the discovery, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to the inspection demand.  (Coy v Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.)

Plaintiff Danny Luna (Plaintiff) moves to compel compliance with a June 29, 2022 order of this court granting in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Ford Motor America (Defendant) to Requests for Production No. 45 and 46. Plaintiff contends that in October 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to Defendant to seek production under the prior order, and on November 1, 2022, Defendant stated that it would produce documents shortly. (Samra Decl. ¶¶ 11–12, Exh. I.) However, as of the filing date of this motion on December 5, 2022, no documents have been produced. (Samra Decl. ¶ 12.)

Defendant in opposition contends that it served documents responsive to Requests No. 45 and 46 on December 9, 2022. (Yu-Chih Decl. ¶ 13.) Defendant contends the delay in production was caused by necessary redactions of private consumer information from the production. (Opposition at p. 4.)

Plaintiff in reply acknowledges the document production, but argues that the production was delayed for five months after this court’s June 2022 order, and further that it did not include any new statements of compliance to indicate whether any documents are being withheld. (Supp. Samra Decl. ¶ 4.)

The motion is mostly moot. Plaintiff’s motion concerns the production of responsive documents, which Defendant remedied four days after the motion was filed. The motion is therefore only GRANTED in part, and Defendant is directed to provide a further verified response to Requests for Production No. 45 and 46.

Sanctions are DENIED.