Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV22417, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22417    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

DANIEL MASGEDI,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

DAVID DUONG, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 20STCV22417(Consolidated with 20STCV45344)

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT SILVICOM, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

January 13, 2023

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 25, 2020, Plaintiff Simon Cohen (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging causes of action for negligence arising from a motor vehicle accident.  The Complaint was filed against several defendants, including Defendant Silvicom, Inc. (“Defendant”).

In a motion filed on November 17, 2023, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel.  Specifically, Defendant moves to Compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests Nos. 7 and 8. Defendant also seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,191.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).)  It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence.  “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.  (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also CCP §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) [Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.]; Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence].)

III.        DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Opposition filed December 30, 2022, asserts that Defendant’s Motion is moot, as Plaintiff provided further responses to the discovery at issue in the Motion on December 30, 2022.  (Moghadam Decl., ¶¶ 7-9, Exhs. 1-2.)  The response states that Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents.  In reply, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to provide all the documents and is withholding them based on privilege. 

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED.  To the extent that Plaintiff withholds any documents based on privilege, Plaintiff must provide a privilege log specifically identifying the document withheld, describing with sufficient specificity the nature of the information withheld, and asserting the basis of the privilege.

In addition, the Court finds that sanctions against Plaintiff are proper in a reduced amount of $645 (three hours of counsel time at $195 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee) because it is evident to the Court that without the pressure consistently exerted by Defendant no responses would have been forthcoming.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve on Defendant further responses to Defendant's Request For Production, Set One within seven (7) calendar days off this order.  To the extent that Plaintiff withholds any documents based on privilege, Plaintiff must provide a privilege log specifically identifying the document withheld, describing with sufficient specificity the nature of the information withheld, and asserting the basis of the asserted privilege.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. The Court orders sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the sum of $645. Said funds shall be paid to counsel for Defendant within 20 days of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.