Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV18567, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18567    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Plaintiffs Elaine Dee Ann Lund and Alyssa Faith Lund, individually and as successors in interest to David Aaron Lund, and Noah Bradford Lund, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Elaine Dee Ann Lund                       

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Southern California Gas Company

(1)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two

(2)   Motion for Protective Order

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO

Plaintiffs Elaine Dee Ann Lund and Alyssa Faith Lund, individually and as successors in interest to David Aaron Lund, and Noah Bradford Lund, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Elaine Dee Ann Lund (“Plaintiffs”) move the court for an order (1) compelling defendant Southern California Gas Company (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, numbers 26-56, 57 (renumbered from Request No. 39), 53, 54, 55, and 56, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $2,160.

The court grants in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, numbers 26-29, 31, 34, 41, and 44-45, because the statements of compliance with the demands are incomplete since they do not state that production “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a)(1), 2031.220.)  The court will order Defendant to produce all documents responsive to those demands as limited to the categories of documents described by Defendant in its supplemental responses thereto and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ separate statement, filed on February 6, 2025, at (1) page 3, lines 6-10 (No. 26); (2) page 8, lines 5-9 (No. 27); (3) page 13, lines 12-20 (No. 28); (4) page 19, lines 10-18 (No. 29); (5) page 28, lines 15-19 (No. 31); (6) page 39, lines 13-14 (No. 34); (7) page 63, lines 17-20 (No. 41); (8) page 75, lines 1-3 (No. 44); and (9) page 79, lines 2-5 (No. 45).

The court grants in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, numbers 30, 32-33, 37, 42-43, and 46-48, because the statements of compliance with the demands are incomplete since they do not state that production “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a)(1), 2031.220.)

The court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, numbers 35-36, 38-39, 49-52, and 57 (renumbered from Request No. 39), because Defendant’s representations of its inability to comply with those demands are inadequate and incomplete since Defendant did not (1) “specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stole, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party[,]” and (2) “the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by the party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a)(2), 2031.230.)

The court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, numbers 40 and 53-54, because those demands are overbroad since the requests include documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the action and that do not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

The court grants in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, numbers 55-56, limited to the time period of February 1, 2019 through August 10, 2021. 

In light of the mixed results of the court’s ruling, the court finds that the imposition of sanctions against Defendant would be unjust and therefore denies Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)  The court also denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs.

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs request that the court (1) issue a protective order requiring Defendant “to first provide full, code-compliant responses to Plaintiffs Demands for Production (Set Two) and produce all responsive documents before [the depositions of Neo Soto, Steven Gonzales, Iliseo Lomoli, Lupe Garcia, and Sean McElroy] proceed on an agreed upon date and time[,]” and (2) award monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $2,860.  (Mot., p. 2:5-7.)

The court finds that Plaintiffs have shown good cause to issue a protective order that the depositions of the five specified employees of Ensign United States Drilling (California), Inc. shall not be taken until a date after Defendant serves the further responses and produces the responsive documents to the Requests for Production of Documents ordered by the court in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subds. (b)(2), (b)(5).) 

The court finds that the circumstances presented would make the imposition of sanctions unjust and therefore denies (1) Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant, and (2) Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (h).) 

ORDER

            The court grants in part plaintiffs Elaine Dee Ann Lund and Alyssa Faith Lund, individually and as successors in interest to David Aaron Lund, and Noah Bradford Lund, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Elaine Dee Ann Lund’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set two, as follows.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the court orders defendant Southern California Gas Company, no later than April 24, 2025, (1) to serve further written responses to plaintiffs Elaine Dee Ann Lund, Alyssa Faith Lund, individually and as successors in interest to David Aaron Lund, and Noah Bradford Lund, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Elaine Dee Ann Lund’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, (i) numbers 26-29, 31, 34, 41, and 44-45, (ii) numbers 30, 32-33, 35-39, 42-43, 46-52, and 57 (renumbered from Request No. 39), and (iii) numbers 55-56, but limited to the time period of February 1, 2019 through August 10, 2021, and (2) to serve on plaintiffs Elaine Dee Ann Lund, Alyssa Faith Lund, individually and as successors in interest to David Aaron Lund, and Noah Bradford Lund, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Elaine Dee Ann Lund, all documents and things in defendant Southern California Gas Company’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, (i) numbers 26-29, 31, 34, 41, and 44-45, but limited to the categories of documents described by defendant Southern California Gas Company in its supplemental responses thereto and as set forth in plaintiffs Elaine Dee Ann Lund, Alyssa Faith Lund, individually and as successors in interest to David Aaron Lund, and Noah Bradford Lund, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Elaine Dee Ann Lund’s separate statement, filed on February 6, 2025, at page 3, lines 6-10 (No. 26), page 8, lines 5-9 (No. 27), page 13, lines 12-20 (No. 28), page 19, lines 10-18 (No. 29), page 28, lines 15-19 (No. 31), page 39, lines 13-14 (No. 34), page 63, lines 17-20 (No. 41), page 75, lines 1-3 (No. 44), and page 79, lines 2-5 (No. 45), (ii) numbers 30, 32-33, 35-39, 42-43, 46-52, and 57 (renumbered from Request No. 39), and (iii) numbers 55-56, limited to documents for the time period of February 1, 2019 through August 10, 2021.

            The court grants in part plaintiffs Elaine Dee Ann Lund and Alyssa Faith Lund, individually and as successors in interest to David Aaron Lund, and Noah Bradford Lund, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Elaine Dee Ann Lund’s for protective order as follows.

             Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, the court orders that the depositions of Neo Soto, Steven Gonzales, Iliseo Lomoli, Lupe Garcia, and Sean McElroy shall be taken after May 23, 2025.

            The court denies all other relief requested.   

            The court orders plaintiffs Elaine Dee Ann Lund and Alyssa Faith Lund, individually and as successors in interest to David Aaron Lund, and Noah Bradford Lund, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Elaine Dee Ann Lund, to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 26, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court