Judge: Lindsey E. Martinez, Case: 2022-01242205, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

1.    Case Management Conference

2.    Motion to Compel Production


Plaintiff Aaron Stull moves to compel Defendant Fred Read Jr. to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.


A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).)


Section 2031.310 provides that a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1) [emphasis added].) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case), and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) 


Plaintiff contends good cause exists to compel Defendant to produce the requested documents because the information requested is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. After Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ROA No. 45.) The FAC does not include any allegations regarding phone calls to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. (See generally FAC.) Although the FAC includes allegations that Defendant called “code enforcement” (FAC ¶ 14), Plaintiff has not submitted an admissible, factual evidence that demonstrates a relationship between “code enforcement” and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the good cause required to compel the documents at issue.


The parties’ requests for sanctions are denied. The court finds that the parties did not engage in a reasonable and good faith meet and confer, making the imposition of sanctions unjust. (See Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 [“[A] reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution . . . requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.”].


Responding party to give notice.