Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 21STCV12788 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges causes of action arising from the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle (the “Vehicle”) manufactured by Defendant. On March 29, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Production (“RFPs”), Set One that were served on Plaintiffs (the “Motion”). Moving Defendant also seeks an adverse inference jury instruction and monetary sanctions.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2017.010, unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See CCP § 2031.310 subd. (b)(1).) The good cause requirement is met if the proponent shows that there exists “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

On January 13, 2023, Moving Defendant took the deposition of Plaintiffs’ Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) Kalie Caldwell (“Caldwell”). (See Declaration of Michael G. King (“King Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibit 1.) During the deposition, Caldwell testified that Plaintiffs used the platforms Google Suite and Slack to communicate with coders, and that these accounts had been deleted. Caldwell also testified that she has a storage unit that may contain documents with financial information. Moving Defendant argues that the information learned during Caldwell’s deposition contradicts Plaintiffs’ discovery responses and statements of compliance.

Plaintiffs argue that the Motion is not timely and provides evidence that it submitted its RFP responses on October 15, 2021 and submitted supplemental responses on June 24, 2022. (See Mark I. Richards (“Richards Decl.”) ¶¶ 2, 4.) Moving Defendant did not address any concerns over the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ responses within 45 days of Plaintiffs’ responses. (Richards Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5.)

As a preliminary matter, the specific basis for the Motion is not entirely clear. The Notice of Motion does not specify the Motion’s statutory basis, and although the Motion appears to be pursuant to CCP section 2031.310, Moving Defendant’s reply (the “Reply”) cites to CCP section 2031.320, the code section governing motions to compel compliance. Although the Motion includes a Separate Statement, Moving Defendant has not fully provided evidence of the scope of its document requests, such as definitions for the terms used within its requests.[1] As a result, it cannot be determined whether the documents that were revealed during Caldwell’s deposition are clearly responsive to Moving Defendant’s document requests. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.[2]

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

[2] Moving Defendant is not precluded from seeking an adverse instruction should it demonstrate that Plaintiffs destroyed evidence later in the litigation, however.