Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV08115, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV08115 Hearing Date: September 25, 2024 Dept: 29
Ramirez v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
23STCV08115
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set
One)
Tentative
The motion is denied.
Background
On April 12, 2023, Jose Miguel Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed the
complaint in this action against Uber Technologies, Inc.; Rasier, LLC;
Rasier-CA, LLC, Jose Carbajal (“Defendant”), and Does 1 through 50.
Defendant filed an answer on August 17, 2023.
Uber Technologies, Inc.; Rasier, LLC; and Rasier-CA, LLC filed
an answer on January 24, 2024.
On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests
for Production (Set One). (Ebriani
Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. 1.) Defendant did
not timely respond but did eventually serve responses on April 5, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5 & Exh. 3.) Plaintiff contended that the responses were
not code compliant, and after counsel met and conferred, Defendant served further
responses on June 18, 2024, which were not verified. (Id., ¶¶ 6-11 & Exh. 5.) Plaintiff contended that these responses were
still not code compliant and sent a number of emails to Defendant; although Defendant
did ultimately serve the verification, the responses were not further
supplemented. (Id., ¶¶ 11-15.)
Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses on
August 5, 2024.
The Court held an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) on
September 6, 2024. Shortly before the
IDC, Defendant served unverified amended responses. (Howard Decl., ¶ 11 & Exh. J.) After the IDC, Defendant served another set
of unverified amended responses on September 9, with the verification following
on September 11. (Id., ¶¶ 12-13 &
Exhs. J, L.)
Defendant filed his opposition to the motion on September
12. Plaintiff filed his reply on
September 18.
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).)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for
Production (Set One), Nos. 5, 7, and 11.
While the motion was pending, and after the IDC, Defendant
served verified amended responses. Plaintiff
agrees that the amended responses to Requests Nos. 5 and 7 are code complaint
and seeks no further relief as to those requests. (Reply, at 1:24-2:3.) Thus, the only remaining issues are Request
No. 11 and Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.
Request No. 11 asks Defendant to produce (in essence) documents
reflecting cell phone or data communication sent or received by anyone in
Defendant’s vehicle during the time period from 30 minutes before the accident
to 30 minutes after the accident.
In response, Defendant begins by stating objections. Then he states: “After a diligent search and
reasonable inquiry, Responding Party is unable to comply with this Requests as
Responding Party believes the documents never existed. Responding Party was the only person in the
vehicle and does not have any responsive documents in his custody, possession
or control and has never been in possession of the requested documents.” (Howard Decl., Exh. J, at 8:16-19.)
The objections are improper.
Defendant waived all objections by not serving timely responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd.
(a).)
Nonetheless, Defendant provided a substantive response, under
oath. That substantive response complies
with the requirements of the Civil Discovery Act, and particularly Code of
Civil Procedure section 2031.230.
In reply, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled, at least, to
the name and address of Defendant’s cell phone carrier. The difficulty with that argument, however,
is that Plaintiff did not ask for that information (or at least did not do so
in Request for Production No. 11).
Plaintiff asked for certain records.
Plaintiff is entitled to receive, and did receive, a code compliant
response: the documents have never existed.
If Defendant’s response had been that the documents exist but
are not within his possession, custody, or control, then (and only then) would
Defendant have been obligated to provide the name and address of the person or
organization that Defendant knew or believed had possession, custody, or
control of the documents. But that was
not Defendant’s answer.
The motion to compel is denied.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also denied. Under Code of Civil Procedure section
2031.310, subdivision (h), the Court must impose a monetary sanction “against any party, person, or
attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response
to a demand,” but here Defendant did not unsuccessfully oppose the motion.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.