Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV35695, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV35695    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff Marthe De La Torre (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Erjaei Seyed Hosein and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a collision between Plaintiff, who was walking on a sidewalk, and Defendant Hosein, who was riding a Lyft motorized scooter.

          On September 15, 2022, Defendant Lyft filed the instant motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff to request for production of documents, set two.

          On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed its opposition.

          Legal Standard — Compel Further Responses

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general. A motion to compel further response to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) 

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

Analysis

Timeliness

The Court finds the motion is timely made. Defendant filed this motion based on Plaintiff’s August 1, 2022 responses. (Chinn-Liu Decl., ¶9, Exh. F.)

Meet and Confer

It’s unclear whether the parties satisfied their meet and confer obligations.

Separate Statement and Status

          In its Opposition, Plaintiff asserts that it has “no other documents in Plaintiff’s possession that Defendant has requested which Plaintiff has not produced.”  (Decla of Rowena Dizon, para. 6.)   Plaintiff objected to Set 2 because they were repetitive of Set One, for which Lyft did not file a motion to compel.  Plaintiff has produced 715 pages of Bates stamped documents.  Plaintiff stands on her objection that Defendant cannot re-propound the same discovery requests.  Moreover, Plaintiff points out that Defendant did not submit a side-by-side Separate Statement with its moving papers.      

          With its motion, Defendant filed a request to file a separate statement following the IDC on October 19, 2022.  This is not code complaint.  Moreover, it is unclear why Defendant waited four months after the IDC to file the separate statement and filed the separate statement after Plaintiff opposed the motion on February 7th.   

          The parties point out that further discovery has been produced.

Accordingly, the motion must be continued for the parties to meet and confer and for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s separate statement of the remaining issues.  

The parties shall file a Joint Separate Statement in a four columns side-by-side format (request; objection; compel; reply).  If the request is duplicative of Set One, the parties shall so indicate.  If Defendant believes the request is significantly different, it shall explain the basis for that belief and the good cause.  As to each request, Plaintiff shall also state whether it has produced all responsive documents for each category and identify the corresponding responsive Bates pages.  The Joint Statement shall be filed 9 court days before the hearing. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production is CONTINUED to __________________________. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and file a four column Joint Statement nine court days before the hearing.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 22nd day of February 2023