Judge: Thomas S. Mcconville, Case: 2021-01226564, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Linda Dou’s Continued Motion to Compel Further Responses to Inspection Demands, Set No. 1, Categories No. 9, 15, 18, 26, & 33  and Sanctions is GRANTED in part. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.)

On June 5, 2023, the court ordered the parties to further meet and confer, and that defendant serve a privilege log.

The party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege. (See Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619.)

The privilege log raises two bases for defendant’s objections: “proprietary business information,” and “third party privacy.”

Proprietary Business Information. The court’s June 5, 2023 order did not include objections on the basis of “proprietary business information.” Additionally, defendant’s second amended verified responses failed to preserve any objections on this basis.

Defendant’s second amended responses attempt to incorporate by reference introductory  general objections. Nothing in the Discovery Act authorizes a responding party to incorporate by reference a list of objections stated before the actual responses to the inspection demands.  Calif. Code of Civil Procedure, section  2031.210, subdivision (a)(3) requires that the responding party raise objections separately as to each category of records sought. As general objections are not properly raised under Calif. Code of Civil Procedure, section  2031.210, subdivision (a)(3), the court holds that any “general” objections are not properly raised.

Objections not timely raised are deemed waived. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

But even if the court were to consider these objections not waived, the burden is on the party claiming the privilege to demonstrate if falls within a privilege.  (See Lipton v. Superior Court, supra.)  Indeed, the court expressly stated in its minute order of June 5, 2023 that the privilege log should establish the grounds for any redaction, and cited Lipton.  The court further invited defendant to provide additional briefing on this topic, but none has been received.  Based on the descriptions in the privilege log, defendant fails to sustain its burden to demonstrate a basis for the redactions.

Third Party Privacy. This objection is only raised as to document KC 000649 – 000650. That document is described as a forwarded relocation expense estimate, sent by plaintiff. Based upon this vague description, the court cannot determine whether the record contains information that involved third party privacy rights. Defendant fails to meet its burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege. (See Lipton v. Superior Court, supra.)

The court orders that all records in the privilege log be produced without any redactions within five days.

The court imposes monetary sanctions against defendant in the sum of $1,600.00 for the initial motion, and an additional $1,000.00 for the preparation of supplemental briefing.  Thus, the total sanctions amount of $2,600.00 is to be payable to plaintiff through plaintiff’s counsel  within thirty days.

Defendant’s request for sanctions and cost-shifting is denied.

Plaintiff shall give notice.