Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01535, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01535, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01535 Hearing Date: July 3, 2024 Dept: C

WALTERS v. OSI STAFFING, INC., ET AL.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01535

HEARING: 7/3/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

I. Plaintiff Doris Walters’ motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Denisse Vazquez is DENIED. No sanctions.

II. Plaintiff Doris Walters’ motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Osi Staffing, Inc. is DENIED. No sanctions.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This is about an automobile collision. Plaintiff Doris Walters moves to compel further responses to Defendant Denisse Vazquez’s Request for Production of Documents, request numbers 3, 4, 7, 9, 12 to 15, 18, 21, and 23 to 32. Plaintiff Doris Walters moves to compel further responses to Defendant Osi Staffing, Inc.’s Request for Production of Documents, request numbers 3, 4, 7, 9, 12 to 15, 18, 21, and 23 to 32.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further responses to document requests if the party finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general.

Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Denisse Vazquez

Timeliness

Notice of the motion to compel further must be provided within 45 days of service of the verified response or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) This 45-day deadline runs from the date the verified response is served and is extended for service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1010.6, subdivision (a)(4) and 1013, subdivision (a). Failure to timely move to compel within the specified period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

On December 12, 2023, the defendant served verified amended responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents. (Decl. Teppara, ¶ 14, Ex. F.) Responses consisted of both factual responses and objections. (Decl. Teppara, ¶ 14, Ex. F.) The parties agreed to extend the time to file a motion to compel further to December 15, 2023. (Decl. Teppara, ¶ 13, Ex. E.)

Thus, the motion is timely.

Meet and Confer

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

For purposes of determining whether a motion to compel discovery was preceded by a reasonable and good faith effort to meet and confer, such an attempt at informal resolution requires something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)

Based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, the Court finds that the parties sufficiently met and conferred. (Decl. Teppara, ¶¶ 10 to 11, Ex. C, D.)

Discussion

Moving parties must file evidence showing good cause based on specific facts that the requested matter is admissible evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of such evidence. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-24.) Good cause generally calls for a factual exposition of a reasonable ground for the discovery order sought. (Waters v. Super. Ct. of L.A. County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 885, 893.) "[E]ven when no . . . supporting affidavits are filed . . .good cause may be found in the pleadings theretofore filed in the action." (Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 389.)

Here, Plaintiff does not argue good cause, not in the moving papers and not in the separate statement. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections are not warranted, but this is not the same as arguing that the requested matter is admissible evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of such evidence.