Elvira Custodio Ruiz vs Ace-High Trucking LLC et al
Elvira Custodio Ruiz vs Ace-High Trucking LLC et al
Case Number
22CV01576
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 03/24/2025 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motions to Compel (8)
Tentative Ruling
Elvira Custodio Ruiz v. Ace-High Trucking, LLC, et al.
Case No. 22CV01576
Hearing Date: March 24, 2025
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Defendant William Placensia’s Deposition And Production Of Documents At Deposition
(3) Motion To Compel William Placensia’s Responses To Judicial Council Form Interrogatories
(4) Motion To Compel William Placensia’s Responses To Requests For Admission
(5) Motion To Compel William Placensia’s Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents
(6) Motion To Compel Ace-High Trucking, LLC’s, Responses To Requests For Admission
(7) Motion To Compel Ace-High Trucking, LLC’s, Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents
(8) Motion To Compel Ace-High Trucking, LLC’s, Responses To Judicial Council Form Interrogatories
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Elvira Custodio Ruiz: Robert J. Stoll, III, Robert J. Stoll, Jr., Stoll, Matthew C. Stoll, Zachary W. Okun, The Stoll Law Firm
For Defendants and Cross-Complainants Ace-High Trucking, LLC, and William Placencia: David K. Dorenfeld, Mazyar H. Mazarei, Dorenfeldlaw, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING:
(1) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel the deposition of, and the production of documents at deposition by, the person most qualified of defendant Ace-High Trucking, LLC, is granted, without prejudice to the filing of any appropriate motion for a protective order by defendant. On or before April 4, 2025, the person most qualified of defendant Ace-High Trucking, LLC, shall appear for, and proceed with, a deposition pursuant to plaintiff’s fourth notice of deposition.
(2) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel the deposition of, and the production of documents at deposition by, defendant William Placencia is granted, without prejudice to the filing of any appropriate motion for a protective order by defendant. On or before April 4, 2025, defendant William Placencia shall appear for, and proceed with, a deposition pursuant to plaintiff’s fourth notice of deposition.
(3) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel defendant William Placencia’s responses to plaintiff’s set Judicial Council form interrogatories is granted. Defendant William Placencia shall, on or before April 4, 2025, serve verified, code compliant, further responses to plaintiff’s set two form interrogatory nos. 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1 through 16.10, and 17.1, without objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege, and, if necessary, a privilege log.
(4) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel defendant William Placencia’s responses to requests for admission is granted. Defendant William Placencia shall, on or before April 4, 2025, serve verified, code compliant, further responses to plaintiff’s set two requests for admission nos. 17 through 57, without objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege, and, if necessary, a privilege log.
(5) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel defendant William Placensia’s responses to requests for production of documents is granted, in part. Defendant William Placencia shall, on or before April 4, 2025, serve verified, code compliant, further responses to plaintiff’s set two request for production of documents nos. 16 through 24 and 26 through 31, without objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege, and, if necessary, a privilege log. As to plaintiff’s set two request for production of documents no. 32, the motion is denied.
(6) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel defendant Ace-High Trucking, LLC’s, responses to requests for admission is granted. Defendant Ace-High Trucking, LLC, shall, on or before April 4, 2025, serve verified, code compliant, further responses to plaintiff’s set two requests for admission nos. 17 through 57, without objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege, and, if necessary, a privilege log.
(7) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel defendant Ace-High Trucking, LLC’s, responses to requests for production of documents is granted, in part. Defendant Ace-High Trucking, LLC, shall, on or before April 4, 2025, provide further, code compliant, verified responses to plaintiff’s set two requests for production of documents nos. 52 through 66, without objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege, and, if necessary, a privilege log. As to plaintiff’s set two request for production of documents no. 67, the motion is denied.
(8) For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiff to compel defendant Ace-High Trucking, LLC’s, responses to Judicial Council form interrogatories is granted. Defendant Ace-High Trucking, LLC, shall, on or before April 4, 2025, provide further, code complaint, verified responses to plaintiff’s set two form interrogatory nos. 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1 through 16.10, and 17.1, without objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege, and, if necessary, a privilege log.
Background:
On April 26, 2022, plaintiff Elvira Custodio Ruiz (Ruiz) filed a complaint against defendants Ace-High Trucking, LLC (Ace-High) and William Placencia (Placencia) (collectively, defendants), alleging three causes of action: (1) motor vehicle; (2) general negligence; and (3) negligence per se. (Note: Information appearing in the record reflects that Placencia asserts he was erroneously named in the complaint as William Placensia.)
The causes of action alleged by Ruiz in the complaint arise from a motor vehicle collision between Ruiz’s vehicle and a flatbed semi-truck operated by Placencia and owned by Placencia and Ace-High, who Ruiz alleges is Placensia’s employer, which occurred on May 24, 2021, near U.S. Highway 101 and Turnpike Road in Santa Barbara, California. (Compl., ¶¶ MV-1, MV-2(a)-(e), GN-1, & p. 6.) Ruiz alleges that, as a result of the collision, she sustained injuries which have caused mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering, and which will result in some permanent disability to Ruiz. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
On July 22, 2022, Ace-High and Placencia filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting ten affirmative defenses, and a cross-complaint against defendants designated by the fictitious names of Roes 1 through 50. In their cross-complaint, Ace-High and Placencia allege causes of action for equitable indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief.
On December 10, 2024, Ace-High and Placencia separately filed oppositions to what Ace-High and Placencia describe as motions to compel the deposition of Placencia and of Ace-High’s person most qualified or “PMQ”. In these oppositions, Ace-High and Placencia assert that Ruiz failed to timely file motions to compel their depositions based on the January 6, 2025, trial date which was then scheduled in this action pursuant to the Court’s order entered on June 25, 2024. The record reflects that the motions to which the December 10, 2024, oppositions of Ace-High and Placencia were directed had not yet been filed by Ruiz.
On December 20, 2024, the Court entered an order continuing the January 6, 2025, trial date to March 3, 2025, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties filed in this action on December 19, 2024.
On December 26, 2024, Ruiz filed a motion for an order (the Ace-High PMQ Motion), compelling Ace-High to produce its PMQ for deposition, and a separate motion for an order (the Placencia Deposition Motion) compelling Placencia to appear and testify at a deposition. In the Ace-High PMQ Motion and the Placencia Deposition Motion, Ruiz also requests orders requiring the PMQ and Placencia to produce documents designated in what Ruiz contends are the operative deposition notices.
On January 6, 2025, Ruiz filed an ex parte application for an order advancing the hearing on the Ace-High PMQ Motion and the Placencia Deposition Motion.
On January 8, 2025, the Court entered a Minute Order denying Ruiz’s January 6, 2025, ex parte application, and ordering the Ace-High PMQ Motion and the Placencia Deposition Motion to remain on calendar for March 24, 2025. Further, the Court authorized Ruiz to file additional motions to compel no later than January 10, 2025, which would also be heard on March 24, 2025.
On January 10, 2025, Ruiz filed a motion for an order (the Placencia RFP Motion) compelling Placencia to provide complete and verified responses to Ruiz’s set two request for production of documents (the Placencia RFP), a separate motion for an order (the Placencia FI Motion) compelling Placencia to provide complete and verified responses to Ruiz’s set two form interrogatories (the Placencia FI), and a separate motion for an order (the Placencia RFA Motion) compelling Placencia to provide complete and verified responses to Ruiz’s set two requests for admission (the Placencia RFA).
On January 13, 2025, Ruiz filed a motion for an order (the Ace-High RFP Motion) compelling Ace-High to provide complete and verified responses to Ruiz’s set two requests for production of documents (the Ace-High RFP), and a separate motion for an order (the Ace-High RFA Motion) compelling Ace-High to provide complete and verified responses to Ruiz’s set two requests for admission (the Ace-High RFA).
On January 14, 2025, Ruiz filed a motion for an order (the Ace-High FI Motion) compelling Ace-High to provide complete and verified responses to Ruiz’s set two form interrogatories (the Ace-High FI).
Ruiz does not include a request for monetary sanctions against Placencia, Ace-High, or defendants’ counsel in any of the discovery motions identified and described above.
The Court’s records reflect that, apart from the oppositions described above which have been mooted by the Court’s January 8, 2025, order also described above, neither Ace-High nor Placencia have filed substantive oppositions or other responses to the discovery motions further discussed above.
The Ace-High PMQ Motion and the Placencia Deposition Motion:
The Ace-High PMQ Motion and the Placencia Deposition Motion are each supported by separate but effectively identical declarations of Ruiz’s counsel, Zachary W. Okun (Okun), who states that Ruiz served ostensibly separate notices of the depositions of Ace-High’s PMQ and Placencia on December 12, 2022, and on February 6, May 9, and August 9, 2023. (Okun Decls., ¶ 3.) Though Okun declares that copies of these notices are attached as, respectively, exhibits A through D to each of the separately filed Okun declarations, the Okun declarations filed with the Court do not include or attach copies of these deposition notices.
Okun further declares that on November 7, 2024, Ruiz served a fourth notice of the deposition of the Ace-High PMQ and a fourth notice of the deposition of Placencia, each of which included requests to produce documents at the depositions, and which set the depositions of the Ace-High PMQ and Placencia for November 19, 2024. (Okun Decls., ¶ 4.) Though Okun asserts that a copy of these fourth deposition notices are attached to each of the Okun declarations as exhibit E, these fourth notices are also not attached to the Okun declarations filed with the Court.
Okun states that the PMQ of Ace-High and Placencia each failed to appear and produce documents at the depositions scheduled for November 19, 2024, and that neither Ace-High nor Placencia served valid objections prior to the depositions. (Okun Decls., ¶¶ 5-6.) Okun asserts that on November 19, 2024, he took a certificate of non-appearance as to the depositions of Placencia and the Ace-High PMQ, copies of which are also not attached to the Okun declarations filed with the Court. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
Okun further states that on November 26, 2024, Ruiz’s counsel (who is not identified as Okun) met and conferred with counsel for Ace-High and Placencia to inquire about defendants’ non-appearance at the depositions, and explained to defendants’ counsel that Ruiz would move for an order compelling the PMQ of Ace-High and Placencia to appear and produce documents at a deposition. (Okun Decls., ¶ 9.)
The Placencia RFP Motion, the Placencia FI Motion, and the Placencia RFA Motion:
In support of the Placencia RFP Motion, the Placencia FI Motion, and the Placencia RFA motion, Ruiz submits effectively identical but separate Okun declarations, in which Okun declares that on November 5, 2024, his office served Placencia with the Placencia RFP, the Placencia FI, and the Placencia RFA. (Okun Decls., ¶ 4 & Exhs. A.) Placencia served unverified responses to the Placencia RFP, the Placencia FI, and the Placencia RFA, on November 26, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 5 & Exh. B.)
On December 30, 2024, Okun sent to Placencia’s counsel a meet and confer letter requesting complete, verified answers to the Placencia RFP, the Placencia FI, and the Placencia RFA. (Okun Decls., ¶ 6 & Exhs. C.) Okun also met and conferred telephonically with Placencia’s counsel on January 3, 2025, during which Placencia’s counsel informed Okun that Placencia would not be able to serve substantive or verified responses to the Placencia RFP, Placencia FI, or Placencia RFA. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
The Ace-High RFA Motion, the Ace-High RFP Motion, and the Ace-High FI Motion:
The Ace-High RFA Motion, the Ace-High RFP Motion, and the Ace-High FI Motion are also each supported by separately filed declarations of Okun, which each include the same information further detailed above. Briefly, in these separately filed declarations, Okun also states that on November 5, 2024, his office served Ace-High with the Ace-High RFA, the Ace-High RFP, and the Ace-High FI, and that Ace-High served unverified responses to these requests on November 26, 2024. (Okun Decls., ¶¶ 4-5 & Exhs. A-B.) Okun also sets forth his efforts to communicate with counsel for Ace-High regarding Ace-High’s responses to the Ace-High RFA, the Ace-High RFP, and the Ace-High FI, which occurred on the same dates and in the same manner described above. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-9 & Exhs. C.)
Analysis:
(1) The Ace-High PMQ Motion and the Placencia Deposition Motion
Proper service of a deposition notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.240 “is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, … the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) (Note: Undesignated statutory references herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated.)
Undisputed information and evidence in the record shows that neither Placencia nor the PMQ of Ace-High have appeared for a deposition notwithstanding what Ruiz contends is proper and effective service of multiple deposition notices under section 2025.240. Moreover, to the extent Placencia and Ace-High have not served objections identifying errors or irregularities in the deposition notices described in the separately filed Okun declarations, Placencia and Ace-High have waived any objections based on such defects. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) There is also no information or evidence in the record to show or suggest that the deposition notices described in the Okun declarations were in any respects defective or improper.
The Ace-High PMQ Motion and the Placencia Deposition Motion are each procedurally appropriate and sufficient. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2); see also Leko v. Cornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124.) Under the circumstances present here, and considering that a trial confirmation conference is set in this matter on May 5, 2025, the Court will grant the Ace-High PMQ Motion and the Placencia Deposition Motion, and order Placencia and the PMQ of Ace-High to, on or before April 4, 2025, appear for and proceed with their respective depositions.
To the extent disputes develop during the depositions ordered herein, including as to the production of documents specified in any deposition notice served by Ruiz, the Court will address any such further disputes upon a future procedurally appropriate and timely motion. In addition, as Ruiz has failed to submit copies of the deposition notices at issue in the Ace-High PMQ Motion and the Placencia Deposition Motion, which ostensibly include requests to produce documents at the depositions, the Court’s ruling herein is without prejudice to the filing of any motion by Placencia or Ace-High for a protective order, if warranted and appropriate.
(2) The Placencia FI Motion
A party responding to interrogatories must respond separately to each interrogatory by either “[a]n answer containing the information sought to be discovered”, “[a]n exercise of the party's option to produce writings”, or “[a]n objection to the particular interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a)(1)-(3).) On receipt of responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the propounding party deems that the responses are “evasive or incomplete,” or if the objections are “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300, subd. (a)(1) & (3).)
“A motion concerning interrogatories … must identify the interrogatories … or requests by set and number.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (d).) The 53-page separate statement submitted by Ruiz in support of the Placencia FI Motion identifies each FI at issue by their number. Though information appearing in the separate statement indicates that Ruiz seeks to compel Placencia’s responses to fewer than all of the Placencia FI, neither the notice nor the memorandum submitted in support of the Placencia FI Motion identify the number of each Placencia FI at issue in the Placencia FI Motion. As a result, the Court must expend significantly more time and resources than would otherwise be necessary to determine the number of each Placencia FI to which Ruiz seeks to compel a further response.
Considering the scarcity of judicial resources, the Court prefers that the number of each discovery request at issue in a motion to compel be set forth in the notice or memorandum submitted in support of that motion, as well as in any required separate statement. Ruiz’s counsel is requested to note the Court’s preference in the future.
Information appearing in the separate statement submitted in support of the Placencia FI Motion shows that Ruiz seeks to compel Placencia to provide further responses to Placencia FI nos. 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1 through 16.10, and 17.1. (Placencia FI Motion Sep. Stmt. at pp. 1-8, 11, 13-17, 19-20, 22-24, 27, 29, 31, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42-43, 45, 47, & 49-50.)
The Court’s review of the separate statement submitted by Ruiz in support of the Placencia FI Motion shows that Placencia has responded to each of the Placencia FI identified above with multiple objections, including that the Placencia FI at issue are vague, ambiguous, uncertain, overly broad, unlimited in scope and time, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. (Placencia FI Motion Sep. Stmt. at pp. 2-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 18, 21-22, 24, 27, 29, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 43, 45, 47, & 50.) Placencia also objects to the Placencia FI on the grounds that Ruiz seeks information outside of Placencia’s possession, custody, or control, seeks documents equally available to Ruiz, that the Placencia FI call for a legal opinion or conclusion, and that Ruiz seeks documents protected from disclosure by Placencia’s or third party’s privacy rights. (Ibid.)
The party resisting discovery bears the burden to show cause justifying its objections. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 (Williams); West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 422 (West Pico).) Placencia has not submitted any opposition to the Placencia FI Motion, or response to Ruiz’s separate statement showing “facts from which the trial court might find that the interrogatories were interposed for improper purposes” or “cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section.” (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220; West Pico, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 422.)
Moreover, “some burden is inherent in all demands for discovery.” (West Pico, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 418.) An objection based on burden “must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” (Id. at p. 417.) Though a court may limit discovery to the extent the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of discovery outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the party opposing discovery “has an obligation to supply the basis for this determination." (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 549; Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431; Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd. (a).) By failing to respond to the separate statement of Ruiz or the Placencia FI Motion, Placencia has offered no information to show why the Placencia FI create an inappropriate burden as compared to the information sought by Ruiz.
Further, to the extent Placencia objects to the Placencia FI at issue based on privacy rights, Placencia “must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citation.] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.) Placencia has also offered no reasoned argument showing how the Placencia FI constitute a threatened intrusion into a legally protected privacy interest or right.
For all reasons further discussed above, Placencia has wholly failed to meet his burden to show cause for any objections asserted by Placencia to Placencia FI nos. 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1 through 16.10, and 17.1. Therefore, the Court will overrule the objections of Placencia to the Placencia FI at issue, except as to those objections based on privilege.
The Court has reviewed the responses of Placencia to Placencia FI nos. 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1 through 16.10, and 17.1. The Court finds that Placencia’s responses fail to comply with section 2030.210 et seq. Placencia has also failed to demonstrate a legally sufficient excuse for any failure to provide substantive or code compliant responses to the Placencia FI identified above. (See Petersen v. City of Vallejo (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 757, 781 [party is entitled to demand answers to interrogatories “as a matter of right” unless a valid objection is stated]; Brown v. Superior Court (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 430, 437 [party seeking responses to interrogatories is not required to establish good cause].)
For all reasons discussed above, the Court will grant the Placencia FI Motion, and order Placencia to provide verified, code compliant further responses to Placencia FI nos. 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1 through 16.10, and 17.1, without the objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege. To the extent Placencia asserts a claim of privilege, the further responses of Placencia to the Placencia FI ordered herein must include sufficient factual information to enable Ruiz and the Court to evaluate the merits of that claim and, if necessary, a privilege log. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1); Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130 [describing the requirements for a proper privilege log].)
(3) The Placencia RFA Motion
An answer to a request for admission must “[a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party”, “[d]eny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue”, or “[s]pecify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b)(1)-(3).) Further, the answer must “be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (a).)
In place of answering the substance of an admission request, a party may object to the request by clearly setting forth the specific ground for the objection in the response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.210, subd. (b); 2033.230, subd. (b).) “If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.230, subd. (a).)
Ruiz also does not set forth the number of each Placencia RFA at issue in the notice or the memorandum submitted in support of the Placencia RFA Motion. The Court’s review of the separate statement submitted in support of the Placencia RFA Motion indicates that Ruiz seeks to compel Placencia to provide further responses to Placencia RFA nos. 17 through 57. (Placencia RFA Motion Sep. Stmt. at pp. 18-37, 39-42, 44-47, & 49-51.) In each of the responses to the Placencia RFA at issue, Placencia has asserted the same objections as those further described above with respect to the Placencia FI, and fails to include any substantive or code compliant answer. (Ibid.)
The same reasoning and analysis apply. By failing to oppose or otherwise respond to the Placencia RFA Motion or the separate statement submitted in support of that motion, Placencia has failed to show, with reasoned factual or legal argument, any cause or justification for the objections to the Placencia RFA. For these reasons, the Court will overrule the objections of Placencia to the Placencia RFA, except as to those objections based on privilege.
The responses of Placencia to Placencia RFA nos. 17 through 57 also fail to comply with section 2033.210 et seq. By failing to oppose or respond to the Placencia RFA Motion, Placencia also has failed to explain, with reasoned argument, why he should not be required to provide code complaint responses to the Placencia RFA at issue. Therefore, and for all reasons further discussed above, the Court will grant the Placencia RFA Motion and require Placencia to serve verified, code compliant further responses to Placencia RFA nos. 17 through 57, without the objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege.
(4) The Placencia RFP Motion
A motion to compel further responses to an inspection demand must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) “[U]nless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, [the] burden [of showing good cause] is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
As Ruiz does not identify the number of each Placencia RFP at issue in the notice or the memorandum submitted in support of the Placencia RFP Motion, it is the Court’s understanding, based on information appearing in the separate statement submitted in support of that motion, that Ruiz seeks to compel Placencia to provide further responses to Placencia RFP nos. 16 through 24 and 26 through 32. (Placencia RFP Motion Sep. Stmt. at pp. 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34, & 36.)
In Placencia RFP nos. 16 through 24 and 26 through 31, Ruiz requests that Placencia produce documents identified in Placencia’s responses to various Placencia FI. (Placencia RFP Motion Sep. Stmt. at pp. 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, & 34.) In Placencia RFP no. 32, Ruiz requests that Placencia produce all original photographs of any “sub rosa” surveillance of Ruiz. (Id. at p. 36.)
Because Placencia has failed to show, with any reasoned factual or legal argument, why his objections to the Placencia FI have merit, or any cause for Placencia’s failure to provide any substantive responses to the Placencia FI, the Court finds that there exists good cause for the requests stated in Placencia RFP nos. 16 through 24 and 26 through 31.
Apart from a conclusory assertion by Okun that good cause exists for the Placencia RFP in general because the documents are necessary for Ruiz to prosecute her case, wholly absent from the Placencia RFP Motion is any reasoned argument demonstrating good cause for the request stated in Placencia RFP no. 32, which is potentially unlimited in scope to the extent it requests the production of “all” photographs of “any” surveillance of Ruiz. For this reason, the Court does not find that there exists good cause for the request stated in Placencia RFP no. 32, as presently stated. The Court’s ruling herein is without prejudice to the filing of any future motion to compel the documents described in this request, to the extent Ruiz appropriately narrows the scope of Placencia RFP no. 32.
In the responses to the Placencia RFP identified above, Placencia asserts the same, or substantially similar, objections as the objections further described above. The same reasoning and analysis apply. For all reasons further discussed above, the Court will overrule the objections of Placencia to Placencia RFP nos. 16 through 24 and 26 through 32, except as to those based on privilege.
Placencia fails to provide any substantive responses to Placencia RFP nos. 16 through 24 and 26 through 31. Further, Placencia’s responses to these requests fail to comply with section 2031.210 et seq. Placencia also offers no reasoned argument showing why he should not be required to provide substantive responses to Placencia RFP nos. 16 through 24 and 26 through 31. For these and all reasons further discussed above, the Court will grant the Placencia RFP Motion as to Placencia RFP nos. 16 through 24 and 26 through 31, and order Placencia to provide further responses to these requests, without the objections overruled herein except as to those objections based on privilege.
(5) The Ace-High RFA Motion, the Ace-High FI Motion, and the Ace-High RFP Motion
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the Ace-High RFA Motion, the Ace-High FI Motion, and the Ace-High RFP Motion were each filed after the deadline stated in the Court’s January 8, 2025, Minute Order, in which the Court required Ruiz to file any additional motions to compel no later than January 10, 2025. Though the Court will, in the interests of justice, exercise its discretion to consider the late-filed Ace-High RFA Motion, Ace-High FI Motion, and Ace-High RFP Motion on their merits, counsel is reminded of their obligation to comply with the Court’s orders.
Information appearing in the separate statement submitted in support of the Ace-High RFA Motion indicates that Ruiz seeks to compel Ace-High to provide further responses to Ace-High RFA nos. 17 through 57. (Ace-High RFA Motion Sep. Stmt. at pp. 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-17, 19-22, 24-27, 29-32, 34-37, 39-42, 44-47, & 49-51.) Information appearing in the separate statement submitted in support of the Ace-High FI Motion indicates that Ruiz seeks to compel Ace-High to provide further responses to Ace-High FI nos. 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1 through 16.10, and 17.1. (Ace-High FI Motion Sep. Stmt. at pp. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16-17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 29, 31, 33-34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45, & 49.)
The responses of Ace-High to the Ace-High RFA and Ace-High FI identified above include only objections which are identical or substantially similar to the objections further described and discussed above. Ace-High also fails to provide any substantive or code compliant responses to these discovery requests. By failing to oppose or otherwise respond to the Ace-High RFA Motion and the Ace-High FI Motion, Ace-High has failed to show cause for its objections to the Ace-High RFA and Ace-High FI identified above, or why Ace-High should not be required to provide substantive responses to these discovery requests.
The same analysis and reasoning apply. For all reasons discussed above, the Court will overrule the objections of Ace-High to Ace-High RFA nos. 17 through 57 and Ace-High FI nos. 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1 through 16.10, and 17.1, except as to those based on privilege, and order Ace-High to provide verified, code compliant further responses to these discovery requests, without the objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege. To the extent Ace-High asserts objections to the Ace-High FI or Ace-High RFA at issue based on privilege, the Court will require Ace-High to, if necessary, include in its responses sufficient factual information to enable Ruiz and the Court to evaluate the merits of that claim and, if necessary, a privilege log.
Information appearing in the separate statement submitted in support of the Ace-High RFP Motion indicates that Ruiz seeks to compel Ace-High to provide further responses to Ace-High RFP nos. 52 through 67. (Ace-High RFP Motion Sep. Stmt. at pp. 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, & 37.) Similar to the Placencia RFP further discussed above, in Ace-High RFP nos. 52 through 66, Ruiz requests that Ace-High produce the documents identified in various of the Ace-High FI. (Id. at pp. 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, & 35.) In Ace-High RFP no. 67, Ruiz requests that Ace-High produce “all” original photographs of “any sub rosa surveillance” of Ruiz. (Id. at p. 37.)
The responses of Ace-High to each of the Ace-High RFP identified above include the same objections further discussed above. Ace-High has also failed to provide any substantive or code compliant responses to the Ace-High RFP at issue. Ace-High has not filed any opposition or other response to the Ace-High RFP Motion showing, with reasoned legal argument, why its objections to the Ace-High RFP identified above have merit, or why Ace-High should not be required to provide further responses to these requests.
The same analysis and reasoning apply. For all reasons further discussed above, the Court will grant the Ace-High RFP Motion as to Ace-High RFP nos. 52 through 66, and will deny the motion as to Ace-High RFP no. 67, without prejudice to any future procedurally appropriate motion to the extent Ruiz appropriately narrows the scope of the request stated in Ace-High RFP no. 67. The Court will order Ace-High to provide further, code compliant, verified responses to Ace-High RFP nos. 52 through 66, without the objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege. To the extent Ace-High asserts objections based on privilege, the Court will require Ace-High to include in its further responses sufficient factual information demonstrating the merits of that claim, and, if necessary, a privilege log.