Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: "Rios vs. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc.", Date: 2022-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Salvador Rios’ motion to compel is granted in part.

Defendant Beacon Sales Acquisition Inc. shall service complete, code-compliant, verified further responses without objection (other than attorney-client privilege or work-product protection) to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents (set one) #3-4, 10, 20, 22-25, 29-31, 33, 35-39, & 41-47 within 15 days and produce all responsive documents within 30 days.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

If defendant withholds any documents for attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, it shall serve a privilege log within the same 30 days.

The motion was timely filed and served on 6/29/22, within 45 days of defendant’s 6/23/22 supplemental responses.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c) [motion due “within 45 days of the service of . . . any supplemental verified response”]; see also Hanks decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. A].) 

Defendant fails to substantiate its objections to the requests for which further responses are compelled.  (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [burden].)  Defendant fails to show all responsive documents are protected by privilege or work product protection.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (a).)

Defendant’s reliance on Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, is unavailing.  To be sure, an employer’s offer to stipulate to vicarious liability removes the negligent hiring/entrustment issue from the case, rendering that kind of evidence inadmissible at trial.  (Id. at pp. 1157-1158.) 

But as plaintiff notes, relevance for discovery is broader than relevance for trial.  (See Reply at p. 5; see also Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 590-591.)  Discovering the driver’s training and driving history, for example, may well assist plaintiff in “evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.”  (Id. at p. 591, cleaned up.)

That said, the issue is close enough that plaintiff’s sanctions request is denied.

The motion is denied as to Requests #14 and 40.  Defendant served supplemental responses to these Requests prior to the motion being filed.  (See Hanks decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. A.)  However, there is no evidence that plaintiff met and conferred over them.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) 

Plaintiff shall give notice.