Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV44756, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44756    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 2, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jane Doe

Responding Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF 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, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles, asserting claims for injunctive relief and possession of personal property. Plaintiff alleges Defendant wrongfully confiscated Plaintiff’s phone data.

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.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set two, nos. 6 and 7, which seek “all audit trails for all entries and deletions for case #019-07341-0563-021 in Property, Evidence and Laboratory Information Management System (“PRELIMS”) and Level Evaluation Assignment and Tracking System (“CLEATS”).” Defendant objected to these requests on the ground that Plaintiff already is in possession of chain of custody documents and the documents requested are privileged.

Plaintiff asserts that the requests are not burdensome, and the privileges asserted by Defendant are not applicable here. Plaintiff, however, fails to set forth facts showing good cause for the discovery. The audit trails are records showing who, at what time, on what date, made or deleted or altered the computer entry. Plaintiff does not state how this information is relevant to her claims. The Court cannot determine why Plaintiff seeks these documents and how they may support her case.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.