Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 21-1210096, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

1.    Motion to Compel Production

2.    Ex Parte

Motion to Compel Production

RULING: Plaintiff Kevin D Jamison’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth below.

Defendants objections No. 15, 17, 18, to the Decl. of Diana Rivero are OVERRULED.

Defendants objections No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, to the Declaration of Diana Rivero are SUSTAINED.

Plaintiff’s Objections No. 1 and 2to Decl. of Donna Hopper are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s Objections No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, to Decl. of Joshua Vedder are OVERRULED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that a party may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; and (3) an objection in the response is without merit or is too general.

Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a)(1) requires the following: “A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities. (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.”

The moving party must engage in a good faith meet and confer prior to bringing the motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(2).)

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to its Nos. 7, 8, 10- 14, 21-24, and 27-30.

The motion is GRANTED as to Requests for Production Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 27, 28, and 29. For Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 27, 28, and 29, the requests should be limited 2017 Hyundai Sonata Plug-In Hybrid 2.0L LTD Auto 6-Speeds. Any privacy concern can be alleviated by the parties entering into a protective order. Fr Nos. 23, and 24, the requests are limited from 2021 to the present. Further, Plaintiff should produce a list of terms he is interested in in order to aid Defendant in searching through ESI.

The motion is DENIED as to Request for Production No. 10, 21, 22, and 30. These requests are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Kevin D Jamison’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Further responses are to be served within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Ex Parte