Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV29114 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV29114, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29114 Hearing Date: August 19, 2022 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

August 19, 2022

21STCV29114

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Defendant Lyft to Requests for Production

DECISION

With respect to Requests Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 75, the decision on the protective order has rendered the motion moot.

Defendant Lyft is ordered to provide further responsive documents within 15 days after the entry of the protective order.

With respect to Requests No. 13, 18, and 19, Lyft’s response that these requests are premature is not code compliant. Therefore, the motion is granted with respect to these requests. Defendant Lyft is ordered to serve further code compliant responses and produce any responsive documents within 15 days after the date of this order.

With respect to Request No. 31, the Court disagrees that this information is equally available to the requesting party. Therefore, the motion is granted. Defendant Lyft is ordered to serve a further code complaint response and produce any responsive documents within 15 days after the date of this order.

With respect to Request No. 32, 33, and 34, Lyft should provide documentation commensurate with the Court’s earlier ruling on the motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 36, 37, 39, and 41. Any documents produced shall be subject to the protective order. To that extent, the motion to compel further is granted. Defendant Lyft is ordered to provide further responsive documents within 15 days after the entry of the protective order.

With respect to Request No. 73, the motion to compel further is denied.

The Court declines to impose sanctions at this time. The parties should not anticipate that this will be the case in the future.

That said, the Court asks the parties to consider how they can work cooperatively to prevent unnecessary motions practice. Factually, this is a simple case. Yet, the parties have filed seven discovery motions so far.