Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00049, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00049    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: C

LOPEZ v. PARK

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00049

HEARING: 2/28/23 @ 9:30 AM

#2

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Park’s motion to compel response to Defendant’s requests for supplemental responses to production of document, set no. two to Plaintiff Michael Lopez is GRANTED in part as to Nos. 2 and 4.  Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide further responses within 20 days.  The motion is MOOT as to Nos. 1 and 3. 

The court will hear from Defendant regarding whether Defendant paid any filing fees relating to the instant motion.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Park moves to compel further responses to document requests pursuant CCP § 2031.310.   

CCP § 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (CCP § 2031.310(b).) 

The court finds Defendant adequately met and conferred.

Defendant is excused from the separate statement requirement because Plaintiff provided no documents to RPD Nos. 1-2 and 4.  (CRC § 3.1345(b).)  There are only four requests for production of documents at issue in this motion, and the requests and responses were attached as exhibits.  Therefore, the court finds that no separate statement is required in this particular instance.

Defendant states in her Reply that Plaintiff recently emailed the opposition with some exhibits, and that Nos. 2 and 4 are still outstanding.  Therefore, the motion is MOOT as to Nos. 1 and 3.

RPD No. 2

This request seeks “Photo of your car that you drove to arrive at my property at the time of the incidents, if you drove.”  Plaintiff’s objection is without merit.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that “Plaintiff went to the store on March 25, 2021,” and encountered barriers.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 8-10.)  Defendant is entitled to review information that would identify Plaintiff, including a photograph of the vehicle that Plaintiff arrived in.  This evidence is certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

RPD No. 4

This request seeks “photos depicting the spots for your inspections when you need inspection.”  Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.  Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant “failed to provide wheelchair accessible paths of travel.”  (Complaint, ¶ 10.)  Defendant is entitled to documents that purport to show the alleged ADA inaccessible paths.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED in part as to Nos. 2 and 4.  Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide further responses within 20 days.  The motion is MOOT as to Nos. 1 and 3. 

Sanctions: CCP §§ 2023.010(d) and 2031.310(h) authorize the court to impose sanctions against the unsuccessful party unless the court finds the party acted with substantial justification.  

Defendant is only entitled to recover Defendant’s filing fees, if any.  Attorney’s fees are not recoverable because Defendant is appearing in pro per.  The court will hear from Defendant regarding whether Defendant paid any filing fees relating to the instant motion.