Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV40616, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40616    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On February 14, 2025, Defendants Gregory Owen and Susan Owen served Notices of Deposition of Plaintiffs Cathy Feck and Dolores Adams. Defendants set the deposition for March 11, 2025, for Feck, and March 18, 2025, for Adams. Each deposition notice included 44 identical document requests directed to each Plaintiff. On March 10, 2025, Feck served objections and responses to the deposition notice, including individualized objections to each document request. On March 17, 2025, Adams served identical objections and responses.

Both Plaintiffs appeared for their respective depositions but failed to produce any documents. Defendant made multiple efforts in March and April 2025 to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding their objections and to request further code-compliant responses. Defendant also requested to schedule an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC), to which Plaintiffs' counsel responded, “I will get back to you this week”. To date, Defendants have not received any further responses from Plaintiffs or any reply to their meet and confer efforts. Defendants now move to compel further responses to the document requests included in the deposition notices for Cathy Feck and Dolores Adams.

Discussion

Because Plaintiffs failed to participate in a good faith meet and confer process and did not respond to Defendant’s request to schedule an IDC, the Court finds that Defendants have satisfied their preliminary requirements, and the motions are ready to be heard.

Both requests for production are identical, and each Plaintiff provided identical responses to the requests at issue. As a preliminary matter, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs waived their objections by failing to serve timely written objections. Defendants cite Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410, subdivision (a), which requires that any objection to a deposition notice be served at least three calendar days before the scheduled deposition. Plaintiffs, however, served their objections only one day prior to the noticed deposition date, and Defendants contend that the objections have therefore been waived.

Section 2025.410, subdivision (a), provides that “[a]ny party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled.” However, the phrase “any error or irregularity” refers specifically to the noticing party’s noncompliance with Article 2, which governs the formal requirements for deposition notices, such as time, place, and manner of service. It does not extend to objections based on relevance, privilege, or other substantive grounds directed at the document requests attached to a deposition notice. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ objections have not been waived.

As to the specific requests at issue, Plaintiffs served identical responses grouped into two categories.

RFP Nos. 3-9, 14-17, 19-21, 26, 31, 33-34, and 40

For Requests 3-9, 14-17, 19-21, 26, 31, 33-34, and 40, both Plaintiffs responded with “none.” This is not a proper response. A representation of inability to comply with a particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling must affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with the demand. The response must also specify whether the inability to comply is because the requested item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. Additionally, the responding party must provide the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of the requested item. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Plaintiffs’ response fails to state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was conducted, does not explain why they do not have the responsive documents, and provides no information regarding the identity of any third party who may possess the documents, if known.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide code complaint discovery responses to the requests at issue within 20 days of today.

RFP Nos. 1, 2, 11-13, 18, 22-25, 27-30, 32, 35-39, and 41-44

For Requests 1, 2, 11-13, 18, 22-25, 27-30, 32, 35-39, and 41-44, Plaintiffs’ responses state that to the extent there are any non-privileged responsive documents not previously produced and within Plaintiffs’ custody or control, they will be produced.

While the form of this response is generally sufficient, Defendant contends that, according to the responses, Plaintiffs promised to produce documents but failed to produce a single document. However, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs are withholding documents, as their responses are qualified by the phrase “to the extent there are any non-privileged responsive documents not previously produced.” It is possible that Plaintiffs have already produced all responsive documents, but there is no way to confirm this based on the current responses.

This is precisely why Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a), requires that “[a]ny documents produced in response to a demand for inspection…shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).) To determine whether the production is complete, Plaintiffs must label or otherwise designate which documents correspond to each individual request. Without this identification, Defendant cannot evaluate whether all responsive documents have been produced for each request.

Additionally, to the extent Plaintiffs are withholding documents on the basis of privilege, they are required to produce a privilege log that provides sufficient factual information for Defendant to evaluate the basis of the claimed privilege. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subds. (b), (c).)

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide code complaint discovery responses to the requests at issue within 20 days of today.

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’s 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.