Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01650, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01650    Hearing Date: February 5, 2025    Dept: F

RAMOS v. SOUTHEAST MIDDLE SCHOOL, ET AL.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01650

HEARING: 02/05/2025 @ 10:30 AM

#10

TENTATIVE ORDER

I.             Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, nos. 1-2 is GRANTED.

II.            Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, nos. 3, 4, and 5 is DENIED.

III.          Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant) moves to compel Plaintiff Natalie Ramos (Plaintiff) to provide further verified responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (RFPs).

Background

This is a premises liability action. On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Southeast Middle School and Los Angeles Unified School District. Plaintiff alleges that on February 10, 2022, at Southeast Middle School, Plaintiff slipped and fell on water that had gathered on the floor, resulting in injuries. The complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) premises liability and (2) general negligence. On December 14, 2023, Plaintiff requested dismissal as to Defendant Southeast Middle School.  

On November 5, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel further responses to RFPs, set one.

On January 8, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to advance and specially set the hearing on this motion to be heard before the trial date. Trial is scheduled to begin on February 14, 2025.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031 subd. (a), “[o]n receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand” if the demanding party finds:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

“A statement that the party to whom a demand…has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production…demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220.)

Meet and Confer

A motion compelling further response to a demand “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.04.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310 subd. (b)(2).)

The parties have adequately met and conferred. (Steinberg Decl., ¶¶ 7-11.)

Timeliness

Notice of the motion to compel further must be provided within 45 days of service of the 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, subd. (a)(4) and 1013 subd. (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).) The 45-day rule to bring a motion to compel is mandatory and jurisdictional “in the sense that it renders court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Super. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

This motion is timely. Plaintiff served responses to RFPs, set one on September 16, 2024. (Steinberg Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant wrote a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting additional code-compliant responses by October 29, 2024. (Steinberg Decl., ¶ 5.) On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff provided additional responses. (Steinberg Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant then brought this motion on November 5, 2024.

Discussion

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide further verified responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (RFPs). At issue are RFPs, set one, nos. 1-5. They are as follows:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Any and all photographs depicting the scene of the accident and/or your injuries.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Any and all medical records, billings, reports, sign in sheets or other documents from any medical provider who treated you in connection with injuries sustained from this incident.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

Any and all witness statements regarding the above-referenced matter.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Any and all documents, including receipts, invoices, pay stubs, tax returns or other documents supporting your claim for lost earnings and lost earning capacity.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

Any and all reports from any governmental agencies, including but not limited to Police Departments, Sheriff’s Office or other governmental officials regarding the incident in question.

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s responses are evasive and incomplete based on a failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure 2031.230. Defendant specifically argues that Plaintiff failed to use code-compliant language.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the responses are code-compliant and that it is not necessary to use the precise language under the Code.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 provides: “[a] representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular 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. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 provides the requirements for a response that states it will comply: the response “shall state that the production…demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220.)

Plaintiff’s responses to RFPs, set one, nos. 1-2 include language stating the following: “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff has provided responsive documents to this request attached hereto as Exhibit A. Responsive documents include photographs of Plaintiff’s injuries and scene of the incident.” (Steinberg Decl., Exh. A, RFP 1.) Defendant argues these responses are not code-compliant because the responses do not state she “will comply” and Defendant cannot confirm whether she has provided “any and all” documents. (Motion, p. 5.) RFPs, set one, nos. 1-2 are not code-compliant under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 because it does not confirm whether the provided documents constitute all responsive documents.

The opposition argues that all documents were provided.  This information needs to be in the verified responses.

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel further code-compliant responses is GRANTED as to RFPs, set one, nos. 1-2. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified, code-compliant responses by February 13, 2025.

In response to RFP, set one, nos. 3 and 5, Plaintiff states: “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230, Plaintiff has conducted a reasonable search and diligent inquiry. Plaintiff is not in possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to this request and is not aware of its existence.” (Steinberg Decl., Exh. A, RFP 3, 5.) This response is compliant under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. While Defendant argues that this fails to state that Defendant “lacks the ability to comply,” the fact that Plaintiff states she is unaware of its existence can only mean that she is unable to comply. Being unaware of the existence further means that Plaintiff would not be able to provide name and address of people or entities would possess the information.

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel further code-compliant responses is DENIED as to RFPs, set one, nos. 3 and 5.

In responses to RFP, set one, no. 4, Plaintiff states “Not applicable, plaintiff is not making a wage loss or earning capacity claim.” This response is adequate because RFP no. 4 is for all documents supporting a claim that is not being made.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further code-complaint responses is DENIED as to RFP no. 4. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 10 days of this order.

Sanctions

Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 subd. (a).

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 subd. (d) states: the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Here, the Court finds sanctions are not warranted. Neither Plaintiff’s opposition nor Defendant’s motion were entirely unsuccessful. The Court found for both sides on different RFPs. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.