Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV20437, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20437    Hearing Date: March 1, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Tentative

The Court will hear from counsel regarding what disputes (if any) remain.

Background

This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident on February 13, 2020, in Downey.  Plaintiff Sharique Shaikh (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action on June 1, 2021, asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle negligence against Crisoforo Orozoco Manzaneres (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10.  Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on February 15, 2023.

On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production (Set One).  (Gabriel Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)  Defendant served objection-only responses.  (Id., ¶ 3 & Exh. B.)  Meet and confer correspondence between counsel did not resolve the disputes.  (Id., ¶¶ 4-6 & Exhs. C-E.)

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses.  Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.

The parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) on February 8, 2024.

Defendant has not filed any response.

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 moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 4, 12, 13, and 14.

Based on the information in the file, the Court’s tentative is to GRANT as to Requests Nos. 2, 4, 12, and 13.  Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED.  The category of documents requested is properly described, the documents are within the scope of proper discovery, and Plaintiff has shown good cause for the discovery.

Based on the information in the file, the Court’s tentative is to DENY as to Request No. 14.  The work product objection is SUSTAINED.

Conclusion

The Court will hear from counsel.