Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01669, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01669    Hearing Date: December 12, 2023    Dept: C

CASTELLANOS v. CORIA

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01669

HEARING: 12/12/23 @ 9:30 a.m.

#4

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Alfredo Castellanos’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production (Set Two) is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving Party to give Notice.

Background

Plaintiffs ALFREDO AND MARIA CASTELLANOS filed this lawsuit following a vehicle accident purportedly caused by Defendant MANUEL CORIA (“CORIA") while CORIA was driving in the scope of his employment for Defendant BRIGHTSIDE ELECTRICAL & PLUMBING, INC. (“BRIGHTSIDE”) in an auto owned by BRIGHTSIDE.  Plaintiff Alfredo Castellano (“Plaintiff”) seeks an order compelling CORIA and BRIGHTSIDE (“Defendants”) to submit further responses to Request for Production (Set Two) and sanctions of $1,261.65. 

In a July 20, 2023 order, this Court ruled that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories was premature because Plaintiff had yet to be deposed.

The instant motion requests substantially similar information to that requested in the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories.

Meet and Confer Requirement

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿  

The Court finds that Plaintiff has fulfilled the meet and confer requirement.

Separate Statement 

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff properly filed separate statements.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production. 

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:¿¿ 

(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.

Discussion

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel further requests for production as to the following requests:

·        Request 24: Any and all surveillance videos taken by YOU or YOUR agents of Plaintiff ALFREDO CASTELLANOS at any time since the INCIDENT.

·        Request 25: Any and all Sub Rosa videos taken by YOU or YOUR agents of Plaintiff ALFREDO CASTELLANOS at any time since the INCIDENT.

·        Request 26: Any and all surveillance photographs taken by YOU or YOUR agents of Plaintiff ALFREDO CASTELLANOS at any time since the INCIDENT.

·        Request 27: Any and all Sub Rosa photographs taken by YOU or YOUR agents of Plaintiff ALFREDO CASTELLANOS at any time since the INCIDENT.

In a July 20, 2023 order, this Court ruled that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories was premature because Plaintiff had yet to be deposed. This Court ruled that at a minimum, Defendants should be afforded a fair opportunity to obtain Plaintiff’s sworn deposition testimony before being compelled to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

The deposition of Plaintiff was meant to occur on August 15, 2023. However, due to the illness of Defense counsel it was not taken.

The information requested here is substantially similar to the information requested in the Motion to Compel Further Form Interrogatories.  Accordingly, since the deposition has yet to take place, the Court finds the motion is premature. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is DENIED without prejudice.