Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02010, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02010    Hearing Date: December 15, 2023    Dept: I

These are two of the many motions to compel.

This is an unusually nasty fight between neighbors over an easement and a driveway.  Plaintiffs contend that defendants acted very poorly regarding their tenant and workmen because of a slight potential encroachment beyond their easement.  Defendants contend that they acted appropriately and within their rights.  Plaintiff propounded discovery.  Defendants responded and plaintiffs contend that the responses were not sufficient.  The court is taking these two motions out of the many filed.  The court had hoped that the parties would be able to work the discovery out amongst themselves, but alas, such is not the case.

There were emails exchanged and promises to supplement, but the promises seem empty as the supplements never materialized.  That said, due to personal issues, defense counsel promised the supplements by month’s end—which has not yet come.  Plaintiff, rather than wait for the end of the month, is going full steam ahead.

The motion is GRANTED as to FI 2.3, 2.4, the 8.0 series, and 12.1, which defendant already agreed to supplement.

As to FI 2.13, defendant claims that “INCIDENT” is not well defined.  Plaintiff proposed limited the definition to the video and audio recordings (in other words, two discrete events).  It is hard to see how, with that limit, the term INCIDENT is improper.  The motion is GRANTED.  The court would suggest a similar limit to 12.4 and 12.6, and the motion will be GRANTED if such a limitation applies.  Defendants may produce documents in lieu of a substantive response as allowed by section 2030.230, but the response must specify the particular documents that constitute the response; it cannot be a group of tons of documents.  The point of the statute is to say that if the responding party will need to create a schedule from a discrete set of documents, the responding party can have the propounding party do that leg work.  But that is different than a data dump.  The current response does not fit the bill.  Further, as to 12.6, defendant needs to be more complete.  First, there is an objection based on privilege.  If any information is being withheld on that basis, defendants need to say so.  They don’t need to divulge privileged information, but plaintiff is entitled to know whether the objection is there because of a cut and paste or whether it has meaning.  The court also notes that a report in this context can be both verbal and in writing.  If verbal, then much of the specific information in the subparts may not be appropriate, although they might.  Obviously, defendants need not identify a report about which they do not know.

As to FI 14, the response does need to specify the statutes, and the request is GRANTED to that extent.  If defendants really cannot say without divulging privileged material (although the court cannot imagine why that might be), then so be it, but they ought to say pretty directly and plainly.  The court’s tentative view is that plaintiff is entitled to know what statutes he allegedly violated.

The motion is GRANTED as to FI 15.1 and 16.0.  Plaintiff has to respond with whatever knowledge she has at the time of the response.  Even if discovery is ongoing, that is not a reason to stonewall.

Turning to the RFPs, the court rules as follows.  As to RFP 3, it seeks documents relating to the boundaries of defendants’ property.  After the boilerplate objection, defendants agree to comply and claims that all documents are in the production.  However, it is unclear whether any documents are being withheld on the basis of the objection.  If they are not withholding any documents, defendants need to say so.  The motion is GRANTED to that extent.

RFP 4 seeks documents evidencing calls to the police regarding the property in question.  The response is that no such documents exist because defendants did not keep logs.  The same is true here.  If any documents are being withheld on the basis of the objection, defendants need to say so and the motion is GRANTED to that extent.

RFP 9 seeks documents “related to the roadway.”  (Capitalization omitted.)  It is the same thing.  And the same is true of RFP 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

As to RFP 23, the response is not adequate.  The complaint had in fact been answered as of the date of the response.  As such, the RFP must be answered as well and the motion is GRANTED.

RFPs 25 and 26 and 27 and 28 and 29 now will need to be changed.

Given the number of discovery disputes and the parties’ seeming inability to have meaningful discussions, the court is seriously considering appointing a discovery referee.

The requests for sanctions are all DENIED.  Plaintiff could have, and should have, waited until the promised supplement date to see whether the issue would resolve itself.  By jumping the gun, plaintiff has forfeited any claim to sanctions. 

If the parties are going to continue to have these sorts of disputes, especially where they talk past one another rather than to one another, the court STRONGLY recommends that they hire a discovery referee and pay for that bickering themselves rather than foist it upon the taxpayers and an already burdened court.