Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV16505, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16505    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: 29

Gromova v. Immaculate Heart of Mary School
23STCV16505
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Tentative

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

On July 14, 2023, Ekaterina Gromova (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Immaculate Heart of Marcy School, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action or premises liability and negligence arising out of an alleged slip and fall on August 14, 2021, outside of the Immaculate Heart of March School.

On April 25, 2024, Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic School and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation (erroneously sued as Archdiocese of Los Angeles) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed their answer to the complaint.

On the same day that Defendants answered the complaint, they served Plaintiff with Requests for Production (Set One).  (Grannis Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)  Plaintiff served written responses and produced some documents on May 9, 2024.  (Id., ¶¶ 3, 7 & Exhs. B-C.)

Defendants deemed the responses not code compliant and the photocopies of photographs produced to be of poor quality.  (Id., ¶¶ 3, 6-7.)  The parties met and conferred but were unable to resolve their dispute.  (Id., ¶¶ 8-9.)  Defendants scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference, but Plaintiff did not appear.  (Minute Order dated August 2, 2024.)

Defendants filed this motion to compel on June 25, 2024.  Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 1, and Defendants filed a reply on August 7.  Neither side seeks sanctions.

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.)

Discussion

Defendants move to compel further written responses to Requests for Production (Set One), Nos. 1-4, 6-18, and 23-28.  Defendants also move for an order requiring Plaintiff to produce certain photographs in an “original and unaltered digital format,” but the Court notes that this is largely duplicative of their motion to compel as to Requests Nos. 10 and 12.

The Court also notes that Defendants’ Separate Statement addresses only Requests Nos. 1-2, 6-7, 10, 12, 17, and 23-28.

Requests Nos. 1-2, 6-7, 10, 12, 17, and 23-28

Plaintiff’s responses are not code compliant.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.220, 2031.230.)  Defendants have shown good cause.  The motion to compel further responses as to these requests is granted.

Any statement of an inability to comply, including but not limited to an inability to produce digital files or negatives of photographs (for example), must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 and must be verified by the Plaintiff.  A declaration from counsel is not sufficient.

Requests Nos. 3-4, 8-9, 11, 13-16, and 18

Defendants have not included these requests in the Separate Statement, as required.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)  The motion to compel further responses as to these requests is denied.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion to compel a further response.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve a further verified, written, code compliant response, without objection, to Defendants Requests for Production (Set One), Nos. 1-2, 6-7, 10, 12, 17, and 23-28, within 15 days of notice.

The motion is otherwise denied.  To the extent that Defendants seek an order compelling the production of responsive documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, the motion is denied without prejudice as premature.

Moving party to give notice.