Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV16851, Date: 2024-10-21 Tentative Ruling

the subject RFPs are not germane to Plaintiff’s action and thus its objections are justified. Defendant contends that the only internal complaint made by Plaintiff while employed with Defendant was alleged wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Defendant thus argues that the requests are excessive and overly broad since the subject RFPs seek every alleged “complaint” made against Defendant for the last ten (10) years alleging discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin or ancestry, or complaints about “working conditions,” while Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of factual allegations supporting all the types of causes of action and claims sought in the requests. Defendant contends that the requests are nothing more than a pure “fishing expedition” without any factual allegations supporting such far-flung claims.

In reply, Plaintiff simply re-asserts that Plaintiff’s requests seek relevant information regarding evidence of Defendant’s prior acts of discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Unlike a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and request for admissions, a motion for further responses to document production requests must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) [“Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.”]; Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence].)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth specific facts establishing good cause to compel further responses to the RFPs. The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel submitted in support of the Motion is, in essence, a recitation of communications and correspondence between the parties’ respective counsel. Counsel’s declaration, however, does not make a showing of good cause as required by Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 and Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224. Plaintiff has failed to present specific facts—in a declaration—as to why further responses should be compelled and why the documents requested will tend to prove or disprove a fact of consequence in this action or will lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove such fact.

In sum, Plaintiff has not established good cause because the declaration of her counsel is void of specific facts indicative of good cause. As such, Plaintiff has not met her burden to compel further responses to the RFPs.

The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety, including the request for sanctions.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court