Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV03137, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03137    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Streller v. City of Santa Monica, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER REPONSES TO RFPS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Izumi Streller

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant City of Santa Monica and its employee Rochelle McCovery

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Izumi Streller’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs (Set One) is GRANTED. Defendant City of Santa Monica is ordered to serve responses to RFPs Nos. 19, 30-33, and 35-41 without objection within 10 days. Plaintiff has not requested sanctions.

“California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 590.) “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court… any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action... if the matter… appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.” (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 [quotations omitted].) “In sum, the relevance of the subject matter standard must be reasonably applied; in accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (Pacific Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

A motion to compel further "shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand." Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1). "Good cause" should be construed liberally and includes evidence that the sought-after documents are necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587.) If good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to documents production. (Kirkland v. Superior Court 2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

            Plaintiff Izumi Streller (“Steller”) seeks to compel further responses to RFPs Nos. Nos. 19, 30-33, and 35-41. The discovery was served on 8-21-23, and after agreed upon extensions, Defendant City of Santa Monica (“City”) provided responses to RFPs on 10-30-23. (Owen Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3. Ex. 1, 2.) The City provided verified supplemental responses and produced additional responsive documents to the requests at issue in the motion to compel, including a privilege log detailing documents that were not being produced and the asserted privileges on 3-1-24. (Joint Decl., ¶ 2. Ex. B.) On 3-26-24 the parties met and conferred, resolving most disputes at issue, with the only remaining issues being the production of RFPs Nos. 19, 30-33, and 35-41 identified in the privilege log—documents consisting of personnel records including performance evaluations and disciplinary notices related to the City’s employment of Defendant Rachel McCovery (“McCovery”), the operator of the bus on the date of the incident at issue. (Joint Decl., ¶ 3.)

            Streller shows the documents at issue could be relevant to McCovery’s competence to operate the City’s bus on the date of the incident. Streller argues the requests are narrowly tailored and specific, directly relevant and probative of the parties’ claims and defenses which will help Streller and the Court understand and evaluate the causes of the subject incident, McCovery’s competence and fitness to operate the bus, the training and instruction the City provided to her on safe bus operation, and rules the City required her to follow when transporting fee-paying passengers (Owen Decl., ¶ 8.)

            The City argues that the documents at issue would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy pursuant to Gov. Code § 7927.700 and Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution. Furthermore, the City argues the documents sought are not relevant to the underlying claim of negligence and would be inadmissible character evidence, thus the lack of relevance must be weighed against McCovery’s privacy interest in her personnel records and driving history. (Oppo., pp. 7–8.)

            The Court finds that Streller has shown good cause to compel further responses to RFPs to Nos. 19, 30-33, and 35-41.  The Court finds that the city has not met its burden to show that the privacy issues outweigh the relevance of the documents sought. Whether the documents sought are inadmissible character evidence is not an issue now. (See Associated Brewers Distributing Co., supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 587 [“it is not necessary to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence.”].) Furthermore, Streller has stipulated that all of the documents at issue would be subject to the Parties’ 3-11-24 Protective Order, thus eliminating any privacy concerns. (Reply, p. 2:8–9.)