Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV02608, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02608, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV02608 Hearing Date: November 20, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: November 20, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV02608

CASE NAME: Jaime Preston v. Veronica Marie Nelson

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Veronica Marie Nelson

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jaime Preston

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION:

(1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

(2) Requests for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:

(1) DENY

(2) DENY

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff, Jaime Preston (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant, Veronica Marie Nelson, and DOES 1 through 24. The complaint alleges one cause of action for Motor Vehicle Negligence.

On April 4, 2024, Defendant propounded a Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses. On July 5, 2024, Plaintiff provided responses that Defendant argues were evasive and incomplete. Specifically, Defendant contends that at issue was dashcam footage from the vehicle Plaintiff was driving at the time of the incident, a Tesla, but that Plaintiff did not respond about the footage requested directly. As a result, Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on July 11, 2024. On September 5, 2024, after two extension requests, Plaintiff served supplemental responses. However, after review of Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery responses, Defendant maintains Plaintiff still failed to provide complete Code-compliant responses to Requests for Production Nos. 6-8. On September 26, 2024, Defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel requesting the specific discovery missing, the video footage that relates to the screenshot photos produced and to date Defendant’s counsel has not received a response.

Now, Defendant moves on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to 3 specific categories of documents sought by Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

B. Procedural

On October 2, 2024, Defendant filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff’s opposition was filed November 6. No reply was filed as of the date of this Tentative Ruling.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and 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.” If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) ¿

"The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party's subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

B. Discussion

i. Meet and Confer Efforts

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, a motion seeking to compel further responses to inspection demands must be “accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) Here, Defendant’s attorney, Perla Huizar, has filed a declaration (“Huizar Decl.”) which discusses her meet and confer efforts with Plaintiff’s counsel. The issue the court finds with Defendant’s meet and confer efforts are that they took place prior to the serving of Plaintiff’s supplemental responses on September 3, 2024. Defense counsel’s meet and confer efforts on August 2, 2024 and August 12, 2024 are sufficient communications prior to filing a Motion to Compel.

ii. Motion to Compel Further Responses

A party responding to a discovery request has provided a Code-compliant response if the verified written response states that the responding party has produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. If Plaintiff no longer has the rental Tesla vehicle that housed the video and did not make a copy of the video when he had possession of the car, it is not the plaintiff’s burden to secure the video from Tesla. Plaintiff’s opposition indicates he has produced the screen shot / photo which is the only responsive document in his possession, custody or control. Third party discovery to Tesla or to the owner of the car will be required to secure a copy of the video.