Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV24195, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24195    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 13, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

Moving Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles

Responding Party: Plaintiff Larry Waldie

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

            The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.

BACKGROUND

            On September 15, 2020, Plaintiff Larry Waldie filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles, asserting one cause of action for whistleblower retaliation. Plaintiff served as a Lieutenant in the Los Angeles Sherriff’s Department and was the operations Lieutenant of Compton Station. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied a promotion and transfer for expressing opposition to the actions of an allegedly criminal gang within LASD, known as The Executioners. Plaintiff alleges that he refused the request of a leader of the Executioners to promote a certain officer. In response, the officers instituted a “work slowdown.” Plaintiff alleges he reported this to a superior and was denied promotion and transfer because of the report.

ANALYSIS

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)

Defendant moves for further responses to requests for production on the ground that Plaintiff failed to identify which documents are responsive to which requests. In opposition, Plaintiff represents that guidance was provided on how to locate responsive documents. Defendant has not filed a reply to establish otherwise.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.