Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "R2O Development, LLC v. The Related Companies of California, LLC, et al.", Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff R2O Development, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production
Plaintiff R2O Development, LLC moves to compel defendant Related California Residential, LLC to provide further responses to plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set One) Nos. 1, 2, and 5 through 23. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310(a). Section 2031.310(b)(1) requires a motion under subdivision (a) to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. If the moving party shows good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify its objection(s). Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and document production in response to Request Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22 and 23 is granted. Request Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22 and 23 are sufficiently tailored and seek relevant information. Defendant states it has served “amended” responses to Request Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 14 and has produced documents responsive to those requests. To the extent defendant has not already done so, defendant shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 14 by October 13, 2022. Defendant has not persuasively substantiated its objections to Request Nos. 10, 11, 12, 20, 22 and 23. Defendant shall serve further, verified, Code-complaint responses to Requests Nos. 10, 11, 12, 20, 22 and 23, and produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to those requests, by October 13, 2022. Should defendant withhold any responsive documents based on any privilege, defendant shall also serve by October 13, 2022 a privilege log identifying all documents defendant has withheld from production on the basis of a privilege(s). The log shall identify the privilege and set forth sufficient information for plaintiff and the court, if necessary, to evaluate the privilege claims. If defendant has no documents responsive to one or more of the requests, defendant shall serve a Code-complaint verified further response to the applicable request(s) by October 13, 2022 so stating.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and document production in response to Request Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 is denied. Request Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 are overbroad and/or do not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.
Plaintiff’s reply request for judicial notice is denied. The documents are not the proper subject of judicial notice.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Stipulation to Seal Records
The parties have submitted a stipulation and proposed order seeking an order sealing defendant’s opposition (ROA No. 133), the Fraser Declaration (ROA No. 143), plaintiff’s reply (ROA No. 145), and the Wirta Declaration (ROA No. 153). The court declines to issue the requested order.
Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open. Cal. R. Ct. 2.550(c). A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(a). The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. Id.
A party requesting that a court record be filed under seal “must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.” Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(b)(1). “The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” Id.
A court may order a record be filed under seal only if the court expressly finds facts that establish: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. Cal. R. Ct. 2.550(d).
No party has filed a motion or an application to seal records. Even if the court may permit a record to be filed under seal based on an appropriate stipulation of the parties, the stipulation here does not make the required showing. California Rule of Court 2.551 addresses motions and applications to seal records, including the lodging of records conditionally under seal pending determination of a motion or application to seal.
Plaintiff to give notice.