Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV44756, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44756    Hearing Date: March 11, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 11, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(8) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery;

Motion for Protective Order

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFAS, RPDS, FIS AND SIS, SET FOUR ARE DENIED. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SIS, SET ONE, IS GRANTED IN PART. THE REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ARE DENIED.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSE TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY WITHIN 20 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

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, oppositions, and replies.

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

A. Defendant’s (5) Motions to Compel Further Responses to SIs, FIs, RPDs and RFAs

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

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.)

On receipt of a response to requests for admission (“RFAs”) the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an RFA is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.290(a)(2).)  

Defendants move to compel further responses to SIs, sets one and four, FIs, set one, RPDs set two, and RFAs, set two. These requests seek information about Plaintiff’s claim for damages, Plaintiff’s previous lawsuits, the sale of Plaintiff’s cell phone, the purported process servers used by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s phone contacts, Plaintiff’s text messages, and Plaintiff’s evidence showing the County’s disclosure of the data to third parties.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts these requests seek irrelevant information and information that is within Defendants’ possession. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s second set of RFAs exceeds the permissible number of RFAs, and requests that Plaintiff make legal conclusions.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s claim for damages, the process servers used by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s legal conclusions, and Plaintiff’s phone contacts and text messages are irrelevant to this action. Plaintiff has conceded that she cannot recover damages. The identities and communications of process servers used by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s contacts and texts have nothing to do with the merits of this case.

Defendant is entitled to information about Plaintiff’s previous lawsuits. Further response to these interrogatories is necessary.

Defendant’s motions to compel further responses to RFAs, RPDs, FIs and SIs, set four are DENIED. Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to SIs, set one, is GRANTED in part. The requests for sanctions are DENIED.

B. Plaintiff’s (3) Motions to Compel Further Responses to FIs, SIs and RFAs

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to FIs, SIs and RFAs from Defendant. The subject FIs request Defendant provide information about its affirmative defenses, the SIs request information about whether Cellbrite reader software is necessary to read Plaintiff’s cell phone data and about Defendant’s investigation into Plaintiff’s underlying claim of assault against a third-party.

In opposition, Defendant asserts it has sufficiently responded to FIs, information about the Cellbrite reader is irrelevant, and tinformation regarding the District Attorney’s investigation into Plaintiff’s underlying claims are protected as attorney work-product. The Court agrees. The Court has stated repeatedly that the Cellbrite reader issue is not relevant to the merits of this case. Defendant responded to FIs to the best of its ability. The RFAs request protected information and contain confusing hypothetical requests.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are DENIED.

C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (CCP § 2031.060(b).)

Plaintiff moves for a protective order to protect “confidential information.” Plaintiff does not identify the kind of information that requires protection or that is confidential. Plaintiff has not shown the need for a protective order.

Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is DENIED.