Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV29856, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV29856 Hearing Date: September 24, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff Horacio Vela (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Alan Ruck (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for negligence and negligence per se.
On December 27, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed (1) a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions (2) a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (3) a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on September 3 and 4, 2024. On August 21, 2024, Defendant filed oppositions and requests for sanctions. Plaintiffs filed replies on September 27, 2024. The Court continued the hearings to September 24, 2024.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 5, 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 an IDC on July 24, 2024.
B. Timeliness
A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the verified responses, or any supplemental verified responses, or on or before any later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c) [demand for inspection]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c) [interrogatories].) Failure to file a motion by this deadline constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses.
The motions are timely.
C. Meet and confer
A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or interrogatories 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) [demand for inspection]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1) [interrogatories].) “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 submitted meet and confer declarations.
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 separate statements.
APPLICABLE LAW
A. Demand for inspection
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., § 1031.310, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).)
B. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in part:
“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.
“(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
“(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
“(b) (1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(2) 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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.
“(d) 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 further response to interrogatories, 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. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subds. (a), (b), (c), (d).)
DISCUSSION
Responses: April 10, 2024
Motion filed: May 28, 2024
In addition, Defendant has not carried his burden of establishing the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion of the privacy rights he asserts. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:294, p. 8C-98.)
On request for production of documents number 18, Defendant asserts that he “has not conducted surveillance of Plaintiff, and such videos or recordings requested do not exist. Plaintiff was advised of the same at the informal discovery conference related to these motions, and Responding Party has offered to provide further responses stating the same.” The Court orders Defendant to provide verified code-compliant further responses to request for production of documents number 18 by October 22, 2024.
On request for production of documents number 20, Defendant asserts that he “provided a copy of his policy declaration page for the insurance policy in effect at the time of the incident as requested following the informal discovery conference related to Plaintiff’s motions. This point is moot, as Defendant has cured the deficiency in providing the requested documentation. Defendant has offered to provide a further response stating the same.” The Court orders Defendant to provide a verified code-compliant further response to request for production of documents number 20 by October 22, 2024.
The Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions.
B. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one
Served: December 27, 2023
Responses: April 10, 2024
Motion filed: May 28, 2024
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory numbers 22, 23, 24, and 25.
For special interrogatory numbers 26 and 27, Defendant states that he has offered to provide a further response stating that no responsive evidence exists. The Court orders Defendant to provide verified code-compliant further responses to special interrogatory numbers 26 and 27 by October 22, 2024.
The Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions.
C. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one
Served: December 27, 2023
Responses: April 10, 2024
Motion filed: May 28, 2024
On form interrogatory numbers 16.9 and 16.10, Defendant states that he has offered to provide further responses stating he has no information that is responsive to these requests. The Court orders Defendant to provide verified code-compliant further responses to form interrogatory numbers 16.9 and 16.10 by October 22, 2024.
On form interrogatory number 17.1 with respect to requests for admission numbers 7, 18, 24, and 25, Defendant states that he has offered to provide further responses stating he has no information that is responsive to these requests. The Court orders Defendant to provide verified code-compliant further responses to form interrogatory number 17.1 with respect to requests for admission numbers 7, 18, 24, and 25 by October 22, 2024.
The Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff Horacio Vela’s motion to compel Defendant Alan Ruck’s further responses to request for production of documents, set one, as follows:
On requests for production of documents numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 19, the Court orders Defendant either (1) to provide a privilege log listing any responsive documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested which Defendant has withheld under a claim of privilege or privacy protection by October 22, 2024, or (2) to produce previously-withheld responsive documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested and serve verified code-compliant further responses by October 22, 2024.
The Court orders Defendant to provide verified code-compliant further responses to request for production of documents number 18 by October 22, 2024.
The Court orders Defendant to provide verified code-compliant further responses to request for production of documents number 20 by October 22, 2024.
In all other respects, the Court denies the motion.
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff Horacio Vela’s motion to compel Defendant Alan Ruck’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one, as follows:
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory numbers 22, 23, 24, and 25.
The Court orders Defendant to provide verified code-compliant further responses to special interrogatory numbers 26 and 27 by October 22, 2024.
In all other respects, the Court denies the motion.
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff Horacio Vela’s motion to compel Defendant Alan Ruck’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one, as follows:
The Court orders Defendant to provide verified code-compliant further responses to form interrogatory numbers 16.9 and 16.10 by October 22, 2024.
The Court orders Defendant to provide verified code-compliant further responses to form interrogatory number 17.1 with respect to requests for admission numbers 7, 18, 24, and 25 by October 22, 2024.
In all other respects, the Court denies the motion.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Horacio Vela’s requests for sanctions.
The Court DENIES Defendant Alan Ruck’s requests for sanctions.
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.