Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STUV20556, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STUV20556    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Eco Services Operations Corp. (“ESO”) and Steve Caro (“Caro”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges seven causes of action that arise out of an employment relationship.

On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed: (1) a motion to compel ESO’s further responses to Requests for Production, Set One (the “ESO RFP 1 Motion”); (2) a motion to compel ESO’s further responses for RFPs, Set Two (the “ESO RFP 2 Motion”); (3) a motion to compel ESO’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two (the “SPROG Motion”); and (4) a motion to compel Caro’s further responses to RFP, Set One (the “Caro RFP Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).  The Motions also request monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel. 

DISCUSSION

            Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2031.310, 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 responses to a request for 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.)

Under CCP section 2030.300, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. 

            With respect to the Motions concerning RFPs, Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts that show good cause justifying the discovery sought.  With respect to ESO’s SPROG responses, which were served on July 10, 2023, Plaintiff failed to meet and confer before filing the SPROG Motion.  (See CCP § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).)  The proper recourse for Plaintiff to compel ESO’s delayed SPROG responses was to file a motion to compel initial responses.  (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The Court therefore DENIES the Motions. 

             Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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.

       Dated this 20th day of October 2023