Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV00149, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00149, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

On July 15, 2024, defendants Atlas Voluntary Benefits Financial & Insurance Solutions, Inc. (“Atlas”) and Marisol Flores (“Flores”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this motion for an order compelling plaintiff Employee Retention Benefits, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) to serve further responses, without objections, to Request for Production, Set One, RFP Nos. 1, 4-11, 13-18, 20-21. 23, 25-26, 28-33, and 35, and imposing sanctions in the sum of $2,860 against Plaintiff and counsel of record.

Plaintiff served objection-only responses on April 3, 2024, and after meeting and conferring by letter and phone, Plaintiff served “supplemental” responses on April 19, 2024. The Court notes that the parties refer to these subsequent responses interchangeably as supplemental or further responses. But supplemental demands and supplemental responses are different from further responses and are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.050, not section 2031.030. Supplemental discovery is specifically propounded to obtain any later acquired documents or information that was not previously available at the time the responses were prepared and served. Therefore, to clarify, the appropriate term for the type of responses Defendant is seeking is “further responses”, not “supplemental” responses.

Defendants argue that further responses are required because Plaintiff’s objections are meritless and too general. (Motion, pp. 10-11.) In opposition, Plaintiff argues that further responses are not required and that its objections are justified. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants’ motion should be denied because the parties already agreed that: (1) Plaintiff would produce responsive documents on a rolling basis and (2) Defendants’ 45-day deadline to file a motion to compel further would begin once production was complete.

In their reply brief, Defendants deny having agreed to a rolling production and argue that the purported agreement would violate the Code of Civil Procedure’s requirement that any extension to the deadline to file a motion to compel further identify a specific date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s proposed extension to Defendants’ deadline to file a motion to compel further in exchange for a rolling production is invalid. Also, even if the parties agreed to a rolling production in July 2024, Plaintiff has not produced any documents in the last five months.

The separate statements filed by the parties are of limited value beyond identifying Defendants’ requests for production and Plaintiff’s response. Both separate statements only include boilerplate language. Defendants do not identify specific facts evidencing good cause for any of the documents demanded (nor is there any discussion of good cause in their memorandum of points and authorities) and Plaintiff does not substantiate any specific objections. However, upon review of the requests for production, the Court concludes the following:

- Plaintiff’s statement of compliance in response to RFP Nos. 1, 4-10, 13-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23, 26, 28-29, and 32-33 is not acceptable because Plaintiff qualifies its agreement to produce documents “to the extent that they exist.” Documents either exist or they do not. If they do not exist, Plaintiff must state the reason for their nonexistence. These requests were propounded in February 2024 and Plaintiff has had ample time to search its records.

- Defendant’s use of the phrase “financial documents” in RFP Nos. 4-5 is vague and ambiguous and Plaintiff’s objection on that ground is sustained. Defendants must specify the type of “financial documents” which are being sought.

- RFP Nos. 6-7, 9, 11, 13-15, 21, 23, 25, 32-33, and 35 are overly broad because they either fail to identify the timeframe for the communications demanded or the person(s) with whom the communications were made. The Court sustains Plaintiff’s objections to these RFPs. Similarly, RFP Nos. 26 and 30 demand documents regarding “complaints” without specifying a timeframe or the identity of the person making a complaint.

In light of both parties’ failure to provide any meaningful analysis in their briefs or separate statements (indeed, the term “good cause” does not appear even once in Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities), the Court CONTINUES the hearing to ___________ at 8:30 a.m. so that the parties may meet and confer to clarify the scope of the documents which need to be produced. If Plaintiff agrees to produce documents as it represents, it is strongly urged to serve further responses that contain statements of compliance in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. If the issues raised by the motion are resolved prior to the hearing, the motion should be taken off calendar. Given that the parties’ requests and responses are both riddled with problems, no sanctions should be expected.

The Court further ORDERS the parties to provide a joint statement no later than 5 court days before hearing. The joint statement shall consist of 4 columns. One column will identify the number and text of the RFP, one column will identify the response, and Defendants and Plaintiff may each provide a short explanation for why a further response is or is not necessary. These explanations MUST NOT be copied and pasted throughout but instead should be referenced where necessary, i.e., See Argument For RFP No. 5.

The Court additionally notes that Defendants’ requests were served over nine months ago on February 29, 2024, but Plaintiff has yet to produce a single document. This is unacceptable considering Plaintiff’s proclaimed interest in cooperating with the discovery process. In the interest of judicial economy, and to avoid further motion practice (and the attendant risk of sanctions associated with a motion to compel compliance), the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer to agree on a date when document production will be complete, and to be prepared to provide such date to the Court at the hearing. The document production should occur no later than January 31, 2025. If an agreement cannot be reached, or if the production cannot be completed by January 31, 2025, the parties should be prepared to justify their positions with specific facts.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.