Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 22-01263639, Date: 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling
Motion to Compel Production
Plaintiff Carrie A. Dimaggio (“Plaintiff”) seeks an order striking the objections by Defendant FCA US, LLC (“FCA”), compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1-3, 7, 12, 16, 17, 19-21, 25-28, 30-35, 58-60, 67-69, 83-85, 87-89, 104-106, 119, 121, 122, 131, 135-139, 141, 143, 146-148, 151, and 154, and directing FCA to pay monetary sanctions.
As an initial matter, the Court notes Plaintiff’s memorandum exceeded ten pages and did not include a table of contents or table of authorities. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1113(f).) Plaintiff is admonished that it must comply fully with the rules. Failure to comply may result in the non-compliant papers being disregarded.
That said, the Court exercises it discretion to consider the noncompliant moving papers.
The Court continued the earlier hearing on this motion because Defendant’s opposition to the Motion was filed very late, and Plaintiff requested a continuance so that she would have an opportunity to file a Reply Brief. Although the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a continuance of the hearing, Plaintiff did not file any reply papers.
The Court now grants the Motion in part and denies it in part, as set forth below.
The Court denies sanctions; on the facts here, any award of sanctions would be unjust.
Request numbers 1 and 2: Motion denied. FAC’s response says it will “comply in full” with these requests, and the documents FCA described are a fair and reasonable interpretation of the requests. No further response is required. If FCA has not produced these documents, it shall do so within 20 days.
Request number 3: Motion granted. FCA did not oppose the motion and did not justify its objections.
Request number 7: Motion granted. FCA’s response says it will “comply in full” with this request; however, the documents FCA described do not fully address the category of documents requested.
Request number 12: Motion denied. This request is grossly overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case. No further response required.
Request number 16: Motion denied. FCA’s response is Code-compliant. No further response is required.
Request number 17: Motion granted. FCA did not oppose the motion and did not justify its objections.
Request numbers 19-21, 25-28, 30-35, 58-60, 67-69, 83-85, 87-89, and 104-106: Motion denied. These requests are grossly overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case. No further response required.
Request numbers 119, 121, 122, and 131: Motion denied. FAC’s response says it will “comply in full” with these requests and the documents FCA described are a fair and reasonable interpretation of the requests. No further response is required. The Court notes a protective order was issued on 1/25/2023. If FCA has not produced these documents, it is ordered to do so within 20 days.
Request numbers 135-139, and 141: Motion denied. These requests are grossly overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case. No further response is required.
Request number 143: Motion denied. This request is identical to request number 138.
Request number 146: Motion denied. This request is identical to request number 141.
Request numbers 147, and 148: Motion denied. These requests are grossly overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case. No further response is required.
Request number 151: Motion denied. This request is grossly overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case. No further response is required.
Request number 154: Motion denied. This request is identical to request number 151.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.