Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STCV31501, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

On October 6, 2023, Defendant Alexander Gervasi aka Sacha Gervasi filed a motion to compel Plaintiff Diana Lands Nathanson’s responses to Request for Inspection.

A party may demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom demand is made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (d).) Upon receipt of a response, the demanding party may move to compel a further response if a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; a 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 demanding party must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

Request for Inspection No. 1 asks Plaintiff to “[p]roduce all DEVICES in YOUR possession, custody, or control for INSPECTION for RELEVANT MESSAGES.” (Elsea Decl., Exs. 2-3.)

“‘DEVICE’ means any electronic device on which MESSAGES may be sent or received.” (Elsea Decl., Ex. 2.) “‘RELEVANT’ means relating to Sacha Gervasi (‘Gervasi’) in any way without limitation as to time (including all communications to, from, or including Gervasi); relating to YOUR allegations that Gervasi assaulted, falsely imprisoned, inappropriately touched, and/or made sexual advances towards YOU in any way without limitation as to time; and/or relating to any damages YOU claim YOU have suffered in this action as a result of any conduct by Gervasi.” “‘MESSAGES’ means any text messages and/or any form of instant messaging and includes, without limitation, text messages, SMS, MMS, iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, and Facebook Messenger.”

Plaintiff objected on multiple grounds: privilege, confidential business or proprietary information, irrelevance, failure to designate the documents specifically or with reasonable particularity, undue burden, annoyance and harassment, failure to state why documents cannot be produced from less burdensome means, no regard for whether the ESI is reasonably accessible, privacy, redundance, overbroad, and redundance. (Elsea Decl., Ex. 3.)

A request for all messages relating to Defendant in any way without limitation as to time (including all communications to, from, or including Defendant) is grossly overbroad. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant have known each other for more than 20 years, since the late 1990s. (Complaint ¶¶ 2, 9.) However, the Complaint alleges claims based only on sexual battery and assault occurring on July 9, 2021 and January 3, 2022. (Complaint ¶¶ 19, 28.) All messages relating to Defendant prior to those events are not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or damages. Any “warm friendship” perceived by Defendant will not prove or disprove events occurring on later dates. (Motion at p. 11; see id. at p. 12 [messages one day before the first assault and a few days before the second assault].)

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Within 60 days, Plaintiff must permit inspection of her devices (as defined by the Request for Inspection) for messages relating to (1) Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant assaulted, falsely imprisoned, inappropriately touched, and/or made sexual advances towards her on July 9, 2021 and January 3, 2022; and/or (2) any damages Plaintiff claims that she suffered in this action as a result of any conduct by Defendant.

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.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court