Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV28070, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28070    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Susan Martinez and Martha Martinez filed this action against defendants Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California, erroneously sued and served as Pacific Bell Telephone Company, and Fernando Duran Baez for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 11, 2021. 

            On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff Martha Martinez (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Fernando Duran Baez (“Defendant”) participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) concerning Plaintiff’s request for production of documents (“RPDs), set one, served on Defendant.  After discussion with the parties, the issues were resolved in part.  Defendant was to provide further responses to RPDs 1 and 2 within three weeks.  (Min. Order, Dec. 13, 2022.) 

            On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses to RPDs, set one, Nos. 1 and 2, which pertain to Defendant’s cellphone records.  Plaintiff asserts that following the IDC, Defendant served an unverified single page document from which it is difficult to derive aby reliable data.  (Mot. Exh. D.)  Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

            Plaintiff asserts that RPDs 1 and 2 seek only the telephone billing and records of Defendant’s personal cellphone number.  Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has still not provided his cellular provider’s information, and that the single page produced by Defendant does not meet the parameters agreed upon by the parties at the IDC. 

            In opposition, Defendant contends that he complied with the parties’ agreement at the IDC by serving verified supplemental responses with the requested cellphone records on January 3, 2023.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff merely disliked the produced information, and that Plaintiff has attempted to request information different from what was agreed to at the IDC.  Further, Defendant provides that he is now producing the same cellphone records obtained from his cellphone provider, (Opp. Exh. O), so there is nothing to else compel. 

            In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has finally produced a redacted version of his cellphone bill/record, but only after lengthy opposition.  Plaintiff further asserts that she does not herein seek the production of text message records, and that Plaintiff does not seek further production of records other than those that have now been produced.  However, Plaintiff requests that Defendant should be ordered to produce verified copies of Exhibits I and O attached to the opposition and to pay sanctions. 

            Accordingly, Plaintiff is not seeking the production of further documents, but is seeking verifications for Defendant’s supplemental response.  Defendant’s evidence shows that on January 3, 2023, Defendant served verified supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s RPDs 1 and 2, which included a redacted copy of Defendant’s cellphone records.  (Opp. Exh. H-I; see also Mot. Exh. D.)  Exhibit I to the opposition, thus, is already verified.  With the opposition, Defendant submitted Exhibit O- a record obtained from Defendant’s cellphone provider that contains that same information as Exhibit I to the opposition.  

However, as Plaintiff argues, there is no verification attached to Exhibit O.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as follows: Defendant is ordered to serve a verification to Exhibit O within ten (10) days. 

            Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  (CCP § 2031.310(d).)  Here, the evidence shows that Defendant served a further verified response on January 3, 2023, with the information agreed to by the parties at the IDC, and which contains the same information as Exhibit O to Defendant’s opposition.  Given that Defendant attempted to comply with the parties’ agreement, the Court finds sanctions unwarranted in this case. 

Moving Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 23^rd day of March 2023