Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2021-01215145, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

3. Motion to Compel Production

4. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions

No. 1

Defendant United Auto Credit Corporation’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1 is DENIED AS MOOT. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290.) 

Based upon the concession in defendant’s reply of receipt of further responses while this motion was pending, the court denies the motion as moot. If the parties are unable to resolve disputes as to the further responses by meet and confer, defendant may file a motion to compel further responses and seek monetary sanctions.

The court exercised its discretion and considered the late filed reply.

Sanctions were neither noticed nor sought.

No. 2

Defendant United Auto Credit Corporation’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED AS MOOT, in part. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.200.)

Based upon the concession in defendant’s reply, the motion is denied as moot as to interrogatories No. 8, 11, and 20.

The motion is granted as to the remaining disputed interrogatory responses. The court finds that plaintiff’s objections were either without merit, or that plaintiff has failed to justify the objections.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses without objections to the special interrogatories within ten days.

Sanctions were neither noticed nor sought.

The court exercised its discretion and considered the late filed reply.

Defendants is ordered to give notice.

No. 3

Defendant United Auto Credit Corporation’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Inspection Demands is DENIED in its entirety. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310.)

A party seeking further responses to an inspection demand must show good cause for the production of the sought documents & things. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) “To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action, and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” (See Digital Music News, LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

This typically requires evidence of good cause, showing relevance to the subject matter, and specific facts justifying the discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92. 98.) Defendant’s evidence fails to address, much less show good cause for production of the sought records.

Sanctions were neither noticed nor sought.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

No. 4

Defendant United Auto Credit Corporation’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission is DENIED AS MOOT. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290.) 

Based upon the concession in defendant’s reply of receipt of further responses while this motion was pending, the court denies the motion as moot. If the parties are unable to resolve disputes as to the further responses by meet and confer, defendant may file a motion to compel further responses and seek monetary sanctions.

Sanctions were neither noticed nor sought.

The court exercised its discretion and considered the late filed reply.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.