Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV02062, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02062    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: O

22SMCV02062 JEREMY FINDEL, AN INDIVIDUAL vs PETER KORAL

2-6-2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Blaze Pizza International, Blaze Pizza Operations, and Blaze Pizza’s (Defendants)  motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff/Movant Jeremy Findel’s request for production, set one ( RFP’s) is GRANTED.  Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED.  Defendants are ordered to serve supplemental responses without objection that fully complies with CCP §2031.210 by stating it will comply or stating its inability to comply.  If the former, the response “shall state that the production...will be allowed...and that all documents ... in the possession, custody, or control of that party...will be included in the production in compliance with CCP§2031.220.  If the response is a representation of an inability to comply, the response “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand” and specify "whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party" and finally shall state the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. (CCP § 2031.220.)

RFPs Grouped by objection:

RFP Supplemental response stating: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Parties respond as follows: Responding Parties produce documents labeled as Bates Nos _________ Supplying Bates Number responses: 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10,12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45.

RFP Supplemental responses stating diligent search no records found ,parties are unable to respond to this request because the category of documents are not in the possession custody or control of the responding parties: 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 34, 36, 39, 40, 52

RFP Supplemental Response with overly broad and excessively burdensome objection - 6 - OVERRULED - no declaration shows excessive burdensome.

RFP Supplemental statements that refer to another RFP's supplemental response: 18, 33