Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV24038, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24038    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff Larchmont Place LLC served Requests for Production, Set One on Defendant Cyndi Finkle.  Defendant provided responses on December 30, 2022, and supplemental responses on February 17, 2023.  Plaintiff believed the responses were still deficient, so Plaintiff’s counsel emailed and called Defendant’s counsel, who did not reply.  (Huang Decl. ¶¶ 24-26.)

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses.  On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended motion.

Defendant argues that the amended motion is untimely because an amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, and the amended motion was filed 172 days after the deadline.  (Opposition at pp. 1-2.)  However, as noted in the amended motion, “This motion amends a previous filing made on April 3, 2023 in order to include updates for the Court on continued meet and confer efforts.”  Aside from those updates on continued communications between the parties, there is no substantive difference, and the same further responses are sought.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s requirement to hold an informal discovery conference.  (Opposition at pp. 2-3.)  Defendant relies on a February 3, 2022 case management order issued by the judge previously assigned to this Department.  However, according to Page 1 of Department 48’s Courtroom Information, available on the Court’s website and effective February 1, 2023, “Informal Discovery Conferences (IDC) will no longer be conducted in Department 48.  You may file your motions to compel further discovery.  However, the Court now requires the parties to also file a joint statement for discovery disputes (as outlined in Exhibit A) together with your motions.”

DISCUSSION

A party may move to compel a further response to a demand for production of documents if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

For RFP Nos. 10-11, 21, 31-32, 42, Defendant responded with, “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party is unable to comply with this Request because the particular item or category either never existed or is no longer in the possession, custody, or control of Responding Party.  Responding Party is unaware of any person in possession of the particular item or category.”  This is a fully code-compliant response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)  The motion is denied for these RFPs.

For RFP Nos. 24, 36-37, Defendant responded with, “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party is unable to comply with this Request because the particular item or category has never existed.”  Plaintiff argues that Defendant did produce folders with “documents apparently responding to these requests,” so “[b]y claiming inability to comply, and then proceeding to produce seemingly responsive documents, Defendant’s responses appear to be inconsistent with her document production, rendering Plaintiff to guess whether Defendant’s responses are truthful.”  Defendant provided a fully code-compliant response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)  However, the motion is granted in part.  Defendant is ordered to provide a further clarifying response that either (1) reaffirms that there are no responsive documents, or (2) states that Defendant did produce responsive documents and identifies what those documents are. 

For RFP Nos. 2-6, 9, 15-18, 23, 25-27, 30, Defendant produced documents.  However, according to Plaintiff, Defendant has failed to identify the documents responsive to each specific request and the documents are not Bates-stamped.  “Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).)  “There is no requirement that a response identify a document with the specific request to which the document applies,” and no requirement that documents be Bates-stamped.  (Pollock v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1348, 1358.)  Defendant has produced approximately 9,560 pages of documents.  (See Motion at p. 14.)  If Plaintiff believes that this production does not comply with section 2031.280, its remedy may lie in a motion to compel compliance.  But at this stage, Defendant has provided responses, and there is nothing to compel for this motion.  The motion is denied for these RFPs.

CONCLUSION

The motion to compel further is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 19th day of October 2023