Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV02398, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02398    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 23, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Defendant Nordstrom Card Services, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Karen Bobadilla

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.

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 to compel further responses to requests for production of documents and to compel Plaintiff to sit for a second day of deposition. In opposition, Plaintiff represents that supplemental responses have been served to most requests.

The remaining requests at issue are for Plaintiff’s internet browsing history, text messages, etc. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to reimburse a percentage of her phone and internet bills that were used for work purposes. Defendant asserts these documents are necessary to determine this percentage of time. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s phone bills range from $30.00 to $105.00 per month; her internet bill is under $45.00 per month. The Court will not order Plaintiff to produce her entire internet and phone history over at most $25.00 per month (a quarter of her bills as calculated by Plaintiff in opposition). Plaintiff already has testified regarding how often she used these services for work, and has produced her phone bills. These requests are overbroad, and any further response would unnecessarily intrude on Plaintiff’s privacy.

The Court also declines to order Plaintiff to sit for a second day of deposition. As emphasized by Plaintiff in opposition, Defendant never noticed a second day of deposition.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED.