Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 20STCV00351, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV00351, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV00351 Hearing Date: March 25, 2024 Dept: 29

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two)

Tentative

The Court will hear from counsel.

The Court’s tentative, as set forth below, is to grant the motion in part and to deny the motion in part.

Background

The matter involves two consolidated cases arising out of an alleged vehicle accident on February 19, 2018, near the intersection of Colorado Avenue and 26th Street in Santa Monica, California.

On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff Debbie Thomas filed the complaint in Case No. 20STCV00351 (the “Thomas Action”) asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants American Medical Response, Inc. (“AMR”), Global Medical Response, Inc. (“Global”), Envision Healthcare, Inc. (“Envision”), Zane Steven Petterson (“Petterson”), and Does 1 through 50. Plaintiff Thomas requested the dismissal of Defendant Petterson, and Defendants AMR and Envision filed their answers on October 19 and November 3, 2020.

On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff Joanne Hoyko (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in Case No. 20STCV05634 (the “Hokyo Action”) asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendants Petterson, AMR, Global, Envision, and Does 1 through 100. Plaintiff requested the dismissal of Defendant Petterson, and Defendants Envision and AMR filed their answers on November 3 and 18, 2020.

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Thomas Action and the Hokyo Action were consolidated in December 2020.

In January 2023, Plaintiff dismissed her claims against Global and Envision.

On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff Thomas filed a notice of settlement of her entire action (but not the Hokyo Action).

As it relates to the motion currently before the Court, on July 6, 2023, Plaintiff served AMR with Requests for Production (Set Two). (Santiago Decl., ¶ 2.) After several extensions, AMR served responses on November 13. (Id., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff contends that the responses are not code compliant, but the parties were unable t resolve their disputes. (Id., ¶¶ 8-13.)

Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses on January 24, 2024. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions. AMR filed its opposition on March 13, and Plaintiff filed her reply on March 18.

The Court held an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) on March 19, but the matter was not resolved.

Legal Standard

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)

A motion to compel further responses must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery and must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1)-(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

“[I]f a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 …. In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (i).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that any person “engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” A “misuse of the discovery process” includes (among other things) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to a discovery request; disobeying a court order to provide discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(h).)

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 16-29, 34, 37, 45-50, 52, 53, 58, and 60.

RFP No. 16

Plaintiff seeks all documents that support AMR’s contention “that YOUR employee Zane Patterson was not 100% responsible for this INCIDENT.”

AMR’s objections are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is DENIED. AMR has stated, in a verified response, that it cannot comply because there is a false premise in the request; Mr. Patterson was not employed by AMR. Accordingly, AMR is for that reason unable to comply with the request. The response is code compliant. It is unclear what more Plaintiff seeks.

The Court understands that AMR previously stipulated that Mr. Patterson was its employee. (Wood Decl., ¶ 4.) It is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff seeks to enforce this stipulation and/or to estop AMR from at this point denying (in light of its prior stipulation) that Mr. Patterson was its employee. But that issue is not raised in the moving papers and therefore the Court will not reach it.

RFP Nos. 17-19, 22, 45-47, 52-53, 58

Requests Nos. 17-19 are only slight variants of No. 16, with the words “liable” (No. 17), “negligent” (No. 18), and “at fault” (No. 19) substituted in place of “responsible.”

Request Nos. 22, 45-47, 58, and 60 are different but also contain the premise that Mr. Patterson was an employee of AMR.

Request Nos. 52-53 are different but contain that premise that the vehicle that Mr. Patterson was driving belonged to AMR.

AMR’s objections are OVERRULED.

For the same reason as set forth above on No. 16, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is DENIED.

RFP Nos. 20, 23

Request No. 20 seeks all documents that support AMR’s contention that Plaintiff “is responsible for this incident.” Request No. 23 seeks photographs of the damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle.

AMR’s objections based on vagueness, ambiguity, over breadth, legal conclusion, and expert opinion are OVERRULED.

AMR’s statement that it is unable to comply because Mr. Patterson was not employed by AMR is non-responsive, illogical, and not code compliant.

AMR’s objections based on attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine are OVERRULED. AMR, as the party claiming that the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine is a basis to resist or limit discovery, has the initial burden of establishing the factual basis for the claim. (Zimmerman v. Super. Ct. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 389, 402; Citizens for Ceres v. Super. Ct. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [party asserting attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine “must prove the preliminary facts” to show that protection applies]; Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital v. Super. Ct. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 711, 727-728.) AMR has not done so. AMR offers legal assertions but no facts sufficient to support its apparent contention that responsive documents in its possession that show that Plaintiff was responsible for the accident are covered by the attorney-client privilege or protected by the work product doctrine.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 21, 24

Request No. 21 seeks all documents that support AMR’s contention that “some other person or entity” is “responsible for this incident.” Request No. 24 seeks photographs of the damage to vehicles driven by people other than Plaintiff.

AMR’s objections based on vagueness, ambiguity, over breadth, legal conclusion, and expert opinion are OVERRULED.

AMR’s statement that it is unable to comply because Mr. Patterson was not employed by AMR is non-responsive, illogical, and not code compliant.

Moreover, AMR’s verified response (and paragraph 4 of the Wood Declaration) indicate that AMR has concluded that Mr. Patterson, a driver who may be at fault, was an employee of American Medical Response of Southern California (“AMRSC”). AMR must respond regarding what documents it has that support this conclusion; such documents are responsive to this request (as they would support AMR’s contention that another entity (AMRSC) is responsible for the accident).

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is GRANTED.

RFP Nos. 25-34, 48-50

AMR’s objections are OVERRULED. AMR’s statement of inability to comply is not code compliant.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is GRANTED.

RFP No. 37.

AMR’s objections are OVERRULED. AMR’s statement that Mr. Patterson was not employed by AMR is non-responsive, illogical, and not code compliant. AMR’s statement of inability to comply is not code compliant.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied because Plaintiff did not request monetary sanctions in her notice of motion and motion.

Conclusion

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

The Court ORDERS AMR to serve written, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Requests for Production Nos. 20-21, 23-24, 25-34, 37, and 48-50 within 21 days of notice.

The Court DENIES the remainder of the motion, including the request for sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.