Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV44756, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44756    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 12, 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 GRANTED.

DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO COORDINATE INSPECTION AND PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY WITHIN 45 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

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. Plaintiff seeks to inspect the data from Plaintiff’s cell phone that Defendant possesses and seeks an up-to-date chain of custody report of the data. Defendant asserts that it need not comply with the request for inspection because accessing the data contradicts Plaintiff’s allegations that accessing the data violates her rights and because it would be unduly burdensome to collect the personnel and coordinate the inspection. Defendant also argues Plaintiff is not entitled to an up-to-date chain of custody report.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant exceeded its authority in taking cell phone data to which Plaintiff did not consent. The cell phone data is integral to this action; Plaintiff is entitled to discovery of the data in Defendant’s possession. That it would be an inconvenience for Defendant to coordinate an inspection is not grounds to deny discovery. Similarly, the Court sees no reason to deny Plaintiff’s request for current chain of custody reports.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Hearing Date: April 12, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jane Doe

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, 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

            Defendant moves for an order dismissing this action under the Court’s inherent authority to dismiss actions for pervasive misconduct. (See Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736, 757-765.) Defendant asserts Plaintiff has engaged in misconduct by forging signatures on various proofs of service. Defendant presents evidence showing the signatures on proofs of service were copied and pasted from public websites and do not belong to the purported signatory, Jessica Li.

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant has waived any right to challenge defects in service because it responded to each document on the merits. Plaintiff also represents that Jessica Li did not believe it was wrong to use signatures from the internet because the signature looked like hers. (Decl. Li) Li declares that she does not own a scanner or printer and did not have time to go to a paid printing center to scan and upload her own signature. (Decl. Li.) In reply, Defendant assert these admissions by Li are admissions of “fraud.”

            The Court declines to dismiss this action on the grounds Li used a signature image from the internet. As pointed out by Plaintiff, Defendant has shown no prejudice from this practice and there is no evidence of bad faith or intent to defraud on the part of Plaintiff or Li. The Court admonishes Plaintiff and Li that all proofs of service must include the actual signature of the process server. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions.

            Defendant’s motion is DENIED.