Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21BBCV00436, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00436    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     April 18, 2024                                     TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         RHONDA STRAUSS and MARK STRAUSS, v. TEMPLAR TITAN, INC., a corporation doing business in California and DOES 1 through 100.  

CASE NO.:                 21BBCV00436

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Rhonda Strauss and Mark Strauss

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed March 28, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant to provide discovery responses to their requests for the production of documents.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises from Plaintiffs Rhonda Strauss and Mark Strauss’s (“Plaintiffs”) claim that Defendant Templar Titan, Inc., unlawfully placed tracking devices on Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Plaintiffs filed this complaint on May 5, 2021, alleging one cause of action for invasion of privacy.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to its requests for the production of documents is DENIED.

            Plaintiffs’ requests for sanction is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

            A party making a discovery request may move for an order compelling a response if the party to whom the requests were made fails to serve a timely response, including for special interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (b)) and requests for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, subd (b)). A party must serve a response within 30 days after service of a discovery request. (Code Civ. Proc. sections 2030.260, subd, (a) and 2031.260, subd.(a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to compel a response to its requests for the production of documents. Plaintiffs provide they served their requests for the production of documents on February 8, 2024. (Stearn Decl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs provide that on March 12, 2024, Defendant provided objection-only responses. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiffs classify their motion as one to compel an initial response rather than one to compel a further response. However, in the court’s view, this motion is a motion to compel further responses.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a)(3), provides that a party may respond to a demand for inspection with “[a]n objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” Further, a party may move for further responses on the grounds that “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310, subd. (a)(3).) Because the relevant code sections allow a party responding to a discovery response to object and a party to compel further responses over those objections, the correct motion here is a motion to compel further responses.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires a separate statement to be included with a motion to compel further responses. A separate statement is not attached to the present motion. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to its requests for the production of documents is DENIED.

            Plaintiffs’ requests for sanction is denied.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   April 18, 2024                                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org