Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01042, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01042, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01042 Hearing Date: December 21, 2023 Dept: C

OROZCO v. SOUTHLAND TRANSIT, INC.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01042

HEARING: 12/21/23

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) from Defendant SOUTHLAND TRANSIT, INC. is GRANTED in part.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Reply filed as of December 18, 2023.

This motor vehicle negligence action was filed by Plaintiff ANTHONY RANGEL OROZCO (“Plaintiff”) on April 5, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n July 28, 2022… Plaintiff was driving on Rosemead Blvd…. when Defendants’ bus crossed into Plaintiff’s lane of travel and sideswiped/collided with Plaintiff and his motorcycle.” (Complaint ¶7.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

1. Motor Vehicle Negligence;

2. Negligence Per Se;

3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

4. Negligent Hiring/Retention/Supervision/Training; and

5. Statutory Liability-Negligence

Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant SOUTHLAND TRANSIT, INC.‘s (“Southland”) further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one), which seek various documents, reports, and photographs relating to the Subject Incident; video surveillance of the subject intersection at the time of the Subject Incident; and information of the driver of the bus involved in the Subject Incident.

In Opposition, Southland argues that the Motion should be denied because Southland has provided code-compliant responses and produced the documents requested that are in its possession, custody, or control.

“On 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 deems that any of the following apply: (1) A state 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.” (CCP §2031.310(a).)

A motion to compel further responses to a request for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP §2031.310(b).) “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation to prevent surprise at trial. (Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583,588.) Where there is no privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, the burden to show “good cause” is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

The Motion is GRANTED in part. Southland’s amended subject responses state that responsive documents and footage will be produced, or that Southland has no responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control.

However, as of December 18, 2023, no Reply to the Motion has been filed and the Court is unaware of whether any supplemental responses/documents have been served. Southland’s amended responses do not contain any commitment to produce by a date certain. CCP §2031.030(c)(2) requires that a responding party be given a reasonable time for permitting inspection or copying. Therefore, Southland’s obligation is to produce the documents and footage it agreed to produce within a reasonable time of the October 13, 2023 amended responses. Southland has now had a number of months to search for responsive documents/footage and produce them. Southland is ORDERED to produce all remaining documents which they have agreed to produce within 30 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Monetary sanctions are DENIED. Based on the evidence presented, the Court does not find that Southland is engaged in the intentional spoliation of evidence, or is improperly withholding evidence.