Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV18087, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18087    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

Plaintiff moves to compel a second deposition of Defendant Guillermo Delgado and further responses with respect to Defendant’s responses as to the following sets of discovery: (1) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; (2) Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three; and (3) Requests for Production of Documents attached to the Second Amended Deposition Notice.

Defendant’s written responses to these requests uniformly state that either all documents will be produced or that, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, the requested documents are not in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, and to the best of Defendant’s knowledge, such documents do not exist.

However, during Defendant’s deposition, Defendant testified under oath that he never searched for responsive documents and was unaware of any obligation to do so with respect to numerous discovery requests. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s verified responses, attesting to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, are false or made without foundation. The following discrepancies are specifically noted:

1.  Photographs of the Incident (RFP Nos. 1–3, 25, 34, 40, 44, 46):
Defendant admitted to taking three photographs but only produced one. He never searched for the others and did not provide them to his attorney.

2.  Videos and Audio Recordings (RFP Nos. 25, 34, 44, 46):
Defendant did not search for or produce any videos or audio recordings. He testified he was never asked to look for them.

3.  Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Records (RFP Nos. 9, 16, 27, 28):
Defendant testified he did not search for these records, claiming he no longer had the vehicle and believed the documents were unnecessary.

4.  Cell Phone Records (One Hour Before and After the Incident) (RFP Nos. 56–57):
Defendant made no effort to obtain these records. He claimed he did not use his phone at the time and therefore saw no need to search.

5.  Communications With Witnesses (RFP No. 4):
Defendant did not produce any responsive documents and gave no testimony indicating he attempted to locate any.

6.  Identification Documents (RFP Nos. 14–15):
Defendant did not bring or produce any form of identification, including his driver’s license.

7.  Insurance Policies or Incident Reports (RFP Nos. 11–13, 29):
Defendant did not produce any of these documents and provided no testimony indicating any search was conducted.

Plaintiff argues that these inconsistencies between Defendant’s verified responses and his deposition testimony establish good cause under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610 for a further deposition.

Discussion

On March 7, 2025, the Court held an IDC on these discovery issues. The Court ordered Defendant to provide further responses within 30 days, i.e., by April 6, 2025, and directed the parties to meet and confer thereafter regarding a potential further deposition. Defendant argues that it complied with the Court’s order and timely served further responses. Plaintiff acknowledges this in the reply. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the request for production is moot.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff filed the present motion on March 16, 2025, several days before the deadline for Defendant’s further responses, and therefore the motion is premature. Plaintiff notes, however, that the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses was March 16, 2025. Plaintiff has submitted evidence showing that Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant to extend the motion deadline but received no response prior to the filing deadline. As such, Plaintiff had to file the motion to preserve the deadline. The Court finds Plaintiff’s timing to be reasonable under the circumstances.

Defendant contends that “Now that Plaintiff has received the further responses, the situation remains unchanged. There are still no new facts or documents identified in support of Plaintiff’s request.” In response, Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to produce any new documents and merely restated that no documents exist despite claiming a “diligent search and reasonable inquiry.” Plaintiff contends that Defendant again failed to conduct a good faith search for the requested documents.

Plaintiff’s suspicion is reasonable given the discrepancy between Defendant’s verified responses and deposition testimony regarding prior requests. For example:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

A full and complete copy of any surveillance videos, photographs, or audiotapes which have been made of Plaintiff.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

A diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with this demand. The demand cannot be complied with because the information and/or documents are not in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. To the best of Defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief, these documents do not exist. Defendant reserves the right to amend this response as discovery is ongoing.

Deposition Testimony – RFP No. 25:

“Q. Okay. And moving to page 10, number 25. This is, again, related to photos but also any videos, audio tapes, made of plaintiff. Do you see it right here?

A. Neither.

Q. So are you stating that you were never asked this, so you never looked for it?

A. That's right.”

This contradiction establishes good cause for Plaintiff to take a second deposition for the limited purpose of testing the truthfulness of Defendant’s discovery responses. Defendant is ordered to sit for his deposition on this discrete issue within 20 days of today.

As to the issue of sanctions, the Court awards Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for Defendant’s failure to respond to the requests for production in good faith, as evidenced by Defendant’s deposition testimony. The sanctions are imposed jointly and severally against Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record and shall be paid to Plaintiff within 20 days of this Order.

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.