Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 22VECV01048, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV01048    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: T

[TENTATIVE] RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel defendant Kirk Aguilera to Provide Further Responses and Documents Responsive to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is Granted, except the court denies the motion as to RFP 23 and the court will discuss the contract at the hearing.

The court notes that the responses fails to use Code compliant language per CCP sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.240, 2031.250, 2031.280, 2031.285, 2031.320.  Accordingly, the first thing the court does is order that defendant is to provide Code compliant language to the RFP’s.  Second, if there are any documents which might constitute privileged documents, a privilege log in compliance with the Code is required.  Third, when documents are produced (and as they have been produced), they must be Bate stamped and the written response is supposed to identify which page number responds to which RFP, again, as required by Code.  To the extent documents have already been produced that are not in compliance, this must be corrected by 2/28/2023. The court finds that the responses to be grossly insufficient and in violation of both the spirit and the intent of the Discovery Act, and there is no substantial justification for defendant’s conduct.

Defendant Aguilera shall provide further (complete and non-evasive) verified responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production RFPs 5, 6, 13, and 14 by 2/28/2023, and produce documents responsive to RFPs 1, 3, 5, 6, 13, and 14 by 2/28/2023.  The verified responses shall be Code complaint and the documents must be individually numbered with the verified response indicating which pages of the documents are responsive to which RFPs.  No new objections may be asserted.  Many of the already stated objections are without any basis.

            IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.