Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV21725, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV21725    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE IS DENIED 

Background 

            On June 21, 2019, Plaintiff SG Blocks, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against EDI International, PC.  The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which asserts causes of action for (1) intentional interference with economic advantage, (2) negligent interference with economic advantage, (3) intentional interference with contractual relation, (4) professional negligence, (5) breach of contract, (6) express indemnity, and (7) implied indemnity against Defendants EDI International, PC (“EDI”), PVE, LLC (“PVE”), and PVE Sheffler (Sheffler”), LLC (collectively “Defendants”). 

            Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendants to comply with the Parties’ private agreement to produce certain documents. 

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].) 

            Motion to compel a further response must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted.¿¿(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)  A trial court is well within its discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery based on the party’s failure to comply with the separate statement requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.3145(a).  (Mills v. U.S. Bank¿(2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 871, 893 [holding failure to include separate statements required by California Rules of Court provided justification of trial court’s denial of discovery motion.]  

Discussion 

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has failed to set forth any authority which would permit the Court to compel Defendants to produce documents, pursuant to a private agreement reached between the Parties.   

In addition, Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents (Sets one & Two) and Notice of Depositions and Request for Documents (the “Requests”) on Defendants.  (Tung Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)  Defendants provided responses and served documents in accordance with the Requests.  (Oberle Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)  It thus appears that the agreement between the Parties relates to Defendant’s responses to the Requests.  (Tung Decl., ¶ 5.)  To the extent that Plaintiff believes that the responses to those Requests are deficient, Plaintiff must file a motion to compel further responses, which must be accompanied with a separate statement that sets forth the discovery responses at issue and why a further response is required.  Plaintiff failed to file the appropriate motion, and also failed to file a separate statement setting forth the discovery at issue and why further responses are warranted.

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.  In addition, Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Conclusion 

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice.  Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.