Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV00023, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00023    Hearing Date: September 12, 2023    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Selig v. Zeihm, et. al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFPs (SET ONE) AND IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Lauren Selig

RESP. PARTY:         Defendants Rainer Ziehm, et al.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Lauren Selig’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to her request for production of documents (Set One) and Imposition of Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  Defendant is ordered to serve a supplemental response to request numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36.

            Defendant’s objections that the requests are overbroad, cause undue burden, or otherwise seek the production of documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence are OVERRULED, without prejudice to the Defendant seeking a protective order requesting the Plaintiff to share in the reasonable cost to produce the responsive documents in compliance with the Defendants supplemental response ordered herein.

            Specifically, defendant is ordered to serve a verified supplemental response that fully complies with CCP sections:

-        2031.220 (“... shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”),

-        2031.230 (“...shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also 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. The statement shall set forth 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.”)

-        2031.240 (a) (“If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.”)

-        2031.240 (b) (“If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.”, and finally,

-        2031.240(c) “(1) “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”  The Court finds it is necessary for the Defendants to provide a privilege log.

            To the extent Plaintiff’s seeks an order directing the production production of documents in compliance with Defendants’ response, that request is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff making a proper motion to compel compliance under section 2031.320.

            Finally, the parties’ respective requests for sanctions are DENIED.  Notwithstanding the counsels’ participation in an informal discovery conference with the prior assigned judge, the Court finds all counsel failed to meet and confer in a reasonable and  good faith attempt to resolve much, if not all, of these disputes.  Rather than impose sanctions on both parties under Section 2023.050, the Court finds under these circumstances that the imposition of a sanction under Section 2031.310 would be unjust.  Counsel are reminded that “the central precept of the Discovery Act (CCP §§ 2016.010–2036.050) is that civil discovery is essentially self-executing by the parties. Clement v Alegre (2009) 177 CA4th 1277, 1280, 99 CR3d 791. Discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 CA4th 390, 408, 55 CR3d 751 (emphasis added). Cal. Judges Benchbook Civ. Proc. Discovery § 2.1.  In the future counsel are ordered to meet and confer in person, by telephone or by video conference regarding al discovery disputes before they request and informal discovery conference with the Court or file a motion to compel further discovery.