Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV06678, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV06678, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06678 Hearing Date: July 2, 2024 Dept: 61

RANDI NICOLE MCKEE, INDIVIDUALLY, et al. vs READYLIFT SUSPENSION, INC., et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Randi Nicole McKee’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production from Defendants Wheel Pros, LLC and MHT Luxury Alloys are DENIED.

Defendants to give notice.

DISCUSSION

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)

“A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Plaintiff Randi Nicole McKee (Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production No. 2 and 4, and Form Interrogatories No. 17.1, from Defendants Wheel Pros, LLC and MHT Luxury Alloys (Defendants). Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 was evasive, as it purported to state that they lacked information concerning the incident or the components that were at issue in the subject vehicle accident. (Motion at pp. 8–9.) Plaintiff argues that Requests for Production No. 2 and 4, which sought all documents “which refer to your products equipped on the subject vehicle at the time of the incident” and “which refer to the wheels which were equipped on the subject vehicle at the time of the incident” (Separate Statement at pp. 2–4), received responses with meritless objections based on overbreadth and an evasive claim that Defendants do not possess sufficient information to respond, as no inspection of the vehicle has been conducted. (Separate Statement at pp. 2–7.)

Defendants provided supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 on June 20, 2024, the same date their oppositions were filed. (Henry Decl. ¶ 12, Exh. G.) Plaintiff has filed no reply to the oppositions related to Form Interrogatories. Given the provision of supplemental responses, the motions as to the interrogatories are DENIED as moot. This leaves only Plaintiff’s motion as to the requests for production.

The requests for production are overbroad in the same manner that the requests at issue in Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 219, were held to be overbroad. The court in that case addressed requests, served upon a third party to the action, related to “gun mounts” to be supplied by a contractor, which the other party alleged were defective and did not meet contractual specifications. (Calcor, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 219.) The court summarized the discovery at issue as follows:

As examples of the categories of material demanded, we quote the first four of thirty-two requests: “REQUEST NO. 1. [¶] The Gun Mounts, including but not limited to documents relating to the design, modification, engineering manufacture, testing, rejection, revision, modification, or acceptance of the Gun Mounts or any subassemblies or components manufactured in connection with the Gun Mount Project. [¶] REQUEST NO. 2. [¶] All purchase orders, amendments to purchase orders, engineering change orders, drawings, specifications, invoices, rejection reports, accident reports and Material Review Board (‘MRB’) authorization reports relating to the Gun Mounts or the Gun Mount Project. [¶] REQUEST NO. 3. [¶] All requests for quotation (‘RFQ’) or requests for proposal (‘RFP’) in connection with the Gun Mounts or the Gun Mount Project. [¶] REQUEST NO. 4. [¶] All bid materials, including but not limited to cost estimates, labor estimates, and production time estimates prepared for and submitted by Calcor in connection with the Gun Mount Project.” As noted, each of these 32 “requests” is expanded by 6 pages of “definitions” and “instructions.” Although facially detailed and particularized, the demand, in effect, is very simple. It orders Calcor to produce everything in its possession which has anything to do with gun mounts (including the gun mount assemblies themselves).

(Id. at pp. 219–220.) The court held that the requests were overbroad:

Thiem's 12–page demand might as well be condensed into a single sentence: Produce everything in your possession which in any way relates to gun mounts. There is no indication the “categories” bear any relationship to the manner in which Calcor maintains its records. The burden is sought to be imposed on Calcor to search its extensive files, at many locations, to see what it can find to fit Thiem's definitions, instructions and categories.

(Id. at p. 222.)

Plaintiff’s Requests No. 2 and 4 are not as prolix as those at issue in Calcor, but they achieve the same effect more directly by their request for documents ““which refer to your products equipped on the subject vehicle at the time of the incident” and “which refer to the wheels which were equipped on the subject vehicle at the time of the incident.” (Separate Statement at pp. 2–4.) Plaintiff has effectively sought all documents in Defendants’ possession related to the products at issue, without limitation. Although the products themselves may be at issue, Plaintiff does not make a showing of good cause for all documents in Defendants’ possession that refer to them, including, as Defendants argue, financial and sales records for the products at issue. (Opposition at p. 11.)

Although there is little reason to find Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts prior to these motions inadequate, as Defendants argue, these efforts do demonstrate the overbreadth of the requests. In an email memorializing a meet-and-confer call, Plaintiff’s counsel stated: “With regard to Request Nos. 2 and 4 and although I still believe they are proper in form and substance, I will get back to you about possibly providing ‘buckets’ of information,” indicating a potential for narrowing the scope of the request. (Akaragian Decl. Exh. 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email after the motion was filed, stating: “As for the buckets, maybe you can start by producing all design, manufacturing, and warning documents responsive to the requests and we can take it from there.” (Henry Decl. Exh. F.) As Defendants note in opposition, such a response indicates not a narrowing of the scope of the requests, but a “never ending demand for documents that impose an ongoing duty to supplement on Defendant.” (Opposition at p. 11.) Although Plaintiff in reply contends that its email demonstrates that it does not seek “every” document related to the products, Plaintiff does not square this interpretation with the breadth of the requests at issue, for which Plaintiff offered no narrowing interpretation until after filing the present motions, which even then was not framed as a narrowing of scope, but the first installment in an ongoing series of document productions. (Reply at p. 3.)

Plaintiff contends that “asking for documents pertaining to design, manufacturing, and warning documents is not broad or limitless as Defendant claims.” (Reply at p. 3.) But Plaintiff’s motion seeks a much broader document production. Plaintiff may embrace this new and narrower position by serving discovery addressed to these materials.

The motions are therefore DENIED.