Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV36165, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36165    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Maria Carrillo’s Motion to Compel Compliance with August 15, 2022 Order is GRANTED. Further responses within 10 days. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $2,267.50.

Plaintiff to give notice.

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.)

This court on August 15, 2022, granted Plaintiff Maria Carrillo’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production as to Requests No. 11, 17, 35, 36, and 46. These requests sought documents related to Defendant Kia America, Inc.’s (Defendant) pre-litigation purchase analysis of the subject vehicle, the workshop manual for the vehicle, the component repair codes and complaint codes for the vehicle, and any documents Plaintiff was required to sign to accept Defendant’s pre-litigation offer.

In the present motion, Plaintiff claims that despite providing an extension of time in which to allow Defendant to provide the responses ordered, Defendant has failed to provide those same responses. (Samra Decl. ¶¶ 9–12.)

In opposition, Defendant contends that many of the documents requested are not kept in the ordinary course of business, and thus took substantial time and effort to retrieve. (Ourkhan Decl. ¶ 8.) Thus responses were provided belatedly on January 5, 2023, the date the opposition was filed. (Ourkhan Decl. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff in reply contends that the responses served by Defendant are unverified, that the further responses contain objections, and that they do not indicate by page number what documents are responsive to the requests. (Supp. Samra Decl. Exh. A.)

Plaintiff’s motion is meritorious. Defendant has only belatedly provided the responses previously ordered to be produced by the court, and the justification of the delay is conclusory and unconvincing. Defendants have not verified their responses, and offer statements of compliance subject to objections, without indicating the nature of any documents being withheld pursuant to those objections as required under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240, subd. (b).Thus the responses remain non-compliant.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff seeks $2,267.50 in sanctions, representing 3.3 hours of law clerk work at $175 per hour, plus 5.2 hours of attorney work at $325 per hour. (Samra Decl. ¶ 13.) Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $2,267.50.