Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 20STCV18616, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18616    Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, Clarissa Black filed this action against Defendants, Krisada and Satika Chantravat for damages arising out of an automobile accident.  Plaintiff filed the action on 5/15/20, and it is set for trial on 4/03/23.    

2.     Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Trial

Defendants propounded a notice to produce documents at trial.  Plaintiff objected.  Defendants now move to compel Plaintiff to produce documents at trial.  As Plaintiff correctly notes in opposition to the motion, however, Defendants’ notice to produce lacks the required specificity for a notice to produce at trial, as opposed to during discovery. 

The Rutter Guide on Civil Trials and Evidence, §1:114, et seq., explains:

The notice must:

•           — be served on the party from whom production is sought at least 20 days before the date attendance is required (unless an order shortening time is granted); and

•           — state the exact materials or things desired and that the party or person has them in his or her possession or control. [ CCP § 1987(c)]

…

1) [1:115] Compare—description for discovery purposes: For discovery purposes, a party may compel document production by reasonably describing a category of documents (e.g., “all correspondence between Jones and Smith relating to the XYZ transaction”). [CCP § 2031.030(c)(1)]

But to obtain production at trial, the description must be “exact” (e.g., “letter dated June 21, 1990, written by Harry A. Jones to Paula Smith, captioned ‘Re XYZ’ and marked as Exhibit ‘A’ in Smith's deposition”).

2) [1:115.1] Comment: This prevents parties from using a “notice to produce” for discovery purposes after discovery is closed.

Defendants’ descriptions are akin to those permitted by §2031.030(c)(1), but not by §1987(c).  By way of example, Defendants’ first demand seeks to have Plaintiff produce all correspondence sent on her behalf to Esurance regarding claims for personal injuries in connection with a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2/08/20.  Similarly, the second demand seeks to have plaintiff produce all correspondence to anyone regarding her same claims.  The third demand seeks production of “checks received” from Esurance to settle the above-mentioned claims. 

The Court has reviewed each and every demand propounded, and finds that none of the demands satisfy the “exact” standard required by the Code.  Indeed, it appears Defendants are attempting to do exactly what the Rutter Guide explains, in its comment at §1:115.1, is improper: they are attempting to use a notice of produce to obtain documents they failed to obtain during discovery. 

The motion is summarily denied because the notice to produce is improper as a matter of law.  The Court declines to rule on the parties’ other arguments, as doing so is not necessary to a resolution fo the merits of the motion. 

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must call the clerk at 562-256-2227 indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.