Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV18212, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV18212 Hearing Date: February 20, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2023, Plaintiffs Jacob Brown (“Plaintiff”) and April Brown filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”), Oscar Renee Lopez Velasquez (“Velasquez”), and Does 1-50 for negligence per se, negligence, negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention, and loss of consortium.
On October 3, 2023, Metro filed an answer. On January 11, 2024, Velasquez filed an answer.
On August 19, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel Metro’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and ordered Metro to serve further responses to special interrogatory number 14, 15, and 34 within 20 days. In the ruling, the Court addressed Metro’s privacy objections, claim of privilege under Evidence Code section 1040, and objections based on relevance and overbreadth.
On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Metro’s further responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on December 5, 2024. On November 21, 2024, Metro filed a late opposition and request for sanctions. (The Court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition.) On November 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to February 20, 2025.
Trial
is scheduled for July 14, 2025.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Informal Discovery Conference
The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.”
The parties participated in IDCs July 10 and 11, 2024.
B. Timeliness
Unless notice of a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand for inspection. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)
Metro does not dispute Plaintiff's assertion that the motion is timely because the parties agreed to extend the time to file the motion to November 1, 2024.
C. Meet and confer
A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (See 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.)
Plaintiff has provided a meet and confer declaration.
D. Separate statement
With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.
Plaintiff has filed a separate statement.
APPLICABLE LAW
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides in part:
“(a) 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 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.
“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:
“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.
“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310,
subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).)
DISCUSSION
On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff served requests for production of documents, set one, on Metro. On January 11, 2024, Metro served responses. On July 3, 2024, Metro served supplemental responses. On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion.
In its opposition, Metro asserts that on November 20, 2024, it served further supplemental responses, produced documents, and served a second amended privilege log. Metro has attached copies of its November 20, 2024 supplemental responses and privilege log to its opposition.
In his reply, Plaintiff notes that Metro’s further supplemental responses render some of the motion moot. According to Plaintiff, however, “the primary remaining issue before the Court concerns the application of a ‘privilege’ that [Metro] is now asserting to various items, including one which it did not previously assert (Evidence Code § 1040). This affects RFPDs Nos. 38, 42, 46, 48, 49 & 50, and documents generated by the LACMTA Accident Review Board.” (Reply p. 1.) Plaintiff also asserts: “The only responses left at issue are Nos. 19, 20, 38, 42, 46, 48, 49, and 50. Based on [Metro’s] Second Supplemental Responses, which it provided with its Opposition, the Court need not rule on . . . Request for Production Nos. 16, 18, 22, 25, 27, 34-37, 39, and 52. While [Metro] did supplement its responses to NOS. 38, 42, 46, 48, 49 & 50, the issue remains the same—whether Evidence Code § 1040 applies.” (Reply p. 2.)
Neither party has filed a separate statement which includes both sets of Metro’s supplemental responses (served on July 3, 2024 and November 20, 2024). The Court requires a separate statement that lists each discovery request at issue, each response, each supplemental response (including the supplemental responses from July 3, 2024 and November 20, 2024, identified by the service date), and the parties’ arguments about why the Court should or should not compel further responses. Because the Court does not have a separate statement that provides this information in a single document, the Court continues the hearing and orders Metro to file and serve a comprehensive separate statement no later than five court days before the continued hearing.
CONCLUSION
The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Plaintiff Jacob Brown’s motion to compel Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, to a date to be provided at the February 20, 2025 hearing. No later than five court days before the continued hearing, Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is to file and serve a separate statement which lists each discovery request which remains at issue, each response, each supplemental response (identified by service date), and the parties’ arguments about why the Court should or should not compel further responses.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.