Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV04952, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04952    Hearing Date: February 11, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 11, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Melody King

Responding Party: Defendant Idea Crossing, Inc.

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

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, without objections, from Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant provided untimely responses, waiving objections, and failed to provide any responses to the RPDs seeking financial documents. Plaintiff argues that these requests are necessary because Defendant alleges it terminated Plaintiff’s employment for financial reasons, whereas Plaintiff alleges she was terminated for her disability.

In opposition, Defendant represents that it has served all responses agreed to by the parties at their recent IDC. In reply, Plaintiff asserts that the responses remain insufficient because they contain objections and because the financial documents have not been produced in their native format.

The Court declines to order further response. Defendant has provided Plaintiff with the requested documents. The Court sees no reason to require Defendant to send the documents in a different format.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.