Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 21-1210096, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Production

Plaintiff Kevin D. Jamison’s Motion to Compel Compliance is GRANTED.

It is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 . . . that civil discovery be essentially self-executing” (See Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434-35). “Conduct frustrates the goal of a self-executing discovery system when it requires the trial court to become involved in discovery because a dispute leads a party to move for an order compelling [compliance with a discovery mechanism].” (See Clement v. Alegre, (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.)

“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 . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) “Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Ibid.)

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ . . . Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. . . .The phrase ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence’ makes it clear that the scope of discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead to other evidence that would be admissible at trial. ‘Thus, the scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense.’. . . These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611–1612, emphasis in original.)

Code Civ. Proc. section 2017.010 provides in relevant part that “[u]nless 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 … if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence …”

Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(i) states, “if a party fails to obey an order compelling further responses, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction” or “[either] in lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose monetary sanctions.”

Here, Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s 5-12-22 Minute Order requiring further responses within 45 days of the order because (1) Defendant failed to provide information about its databases/meet and confer, which hindered Plaintiff’s ability to provide search terms; (2) Defendant provided unverified further responses on 12-2-22; and (3) Defendant has not produced a single further document.

The first alleged violation stems from a disagreement between the parties regarding whether the parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding search terms. Unfortunately, neither of us were present in the Court room for oral argument and the Minute Order does not specifically order a meet and confer.

The Minute Order does state: “Plaintiff should produce a list of terms he is interested in to aid Defendant in searching through ESI.” This makes sense because in Defendant’s Opposition to the Motion to Compel, filed under ROA 60, Defendant contended: “the proffered requests are entirely overbroad and unduly burdensome and cannot begin to seek targeted information that is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Opposition to Motion to Compel, 2:4-5.) Thus, the Court was responding to Defendant’s objection by ordering Plaintiff to provide terms to narrow the search.

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Notice of Ruling states: “The Parties are ORDERED to meet and confer on search terms to facilitate Defendant’s production of corresponding documents responsive to Requests Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 27, 28, and 29. Plaintiff is to provide Defendant a list of search terms based on Plaintiff’s articulation of the symptoms he experienced with the Subject Vehicle to Defendant’s dealership(s) and documented by the dealership(s) on the repair orders. Defendant is to provide Plaintiff with the names of databases containing responsive information and the manner in which those databases may be searched (i.e., keyword, labor code, operation code, warranty claim code, part replacement code, etc.).” (Declaration of Diana Rivero, ¶ 9, Ex. 3.)

Defendant did not object to the Notice of Ruling. Yet, Defendant is going back on its argument that it cannot begin to seek targeted information and now states that terms were provided in the discovery requests were sufficient and Defendant used these terms to comply with the request. I think Defendant’s attempt to comply using the terms in the requests and not allowing Plaintiff to provide a list of terms violates the Court’s order.

Furthermore, the unverified responses violate the Court’s order. Also, considering Defendant’s position was that it did not need any search terms from Plaintiff, it should have provided the responses within 45 days of the order, which it did not.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Kevin D. Jamison’s Motion to Compel Compliance. Defendant and Plaintiff are ordered to meet and confer regarding search terms for Requests Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 27, 28, and 29, which includes Defendant providing information regarding the databases it is searching and Plaintiff providing search terms. Defendant is ordered to provide further verified responses within 60 days of the ruling. Plaintiff is awarded $2,000 in sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice.