LeeAnn Morgan vs HipCamp Inc et al

Case Number

24CV00291

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/14/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth below:

1. The motion of FreeDog Farms to compel further responses to form interrogatories, sets one, two, and three is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

            a. The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 6.5, 8.1, 8.2 through 8.8 (if the response to No. 8.1 is “yes”), 9.2, and 10.1, contained in Set One only, is granted. LeeAnn Morgan shall provide further, complete, code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories, without objections, no later than February 28, 2025.

            b. The motion is denied as to the remainder of the form interrogatories at-issue.

2. The motion of FreeDog Farms to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 3, 5, and 10 contained in set one, and No. 30 contained in set two, is granted.

            a. LeeAnn Morgan shall provide further, complete, code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories, without objections, no later than February 28, 2025.

            b. Sanctions are awarded in favor of FreeDog Farms, and against LeeAnn Morgan, in the amount of $1,297.50, payable to counsel for FreeDog Farms no later than March 31, 2025.

3. The motion of FreeDog Farms to compel further responses to requests for production of documents Nos. 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, and 18 is granted.

            a. LeeAnn Morgan shall provide further, complete, code-compliant written responses to the requests for production of documents, without objections, no later than February 28, 2025.

            b. LeeAnn Morgan shall produce any responsive documents no later than March 14, 2025.

Background:

On January 22, 2024, plaintiff LeeAnn Morgan (“Morgan” or “plaintiff”) filed her original complaint against defendants HipCamp, Inc. (“HipCamp”), Freedog Farms @ Cactus Flower Ranch, LLC (Freedog”), Sierra Fiechter, and Darin Fiechter (“Fiechter”).

On March 7, 2024, Morgan filed her first amended complaint (“FAC”), removing Sierra Fiechter as a named defendant, and adding Sierra Falso (“Falso”) The judicial counsel form complaint alleged causes of action for: (1) General Negligence - alleged as to all defendants; (2) Premises Liability - alleged as to Freedog, Fiechter, and Falso; and (3) Intentional Tort.

Demurrers to the FAC were sustained with leave to amend and, on August 23, 2024, Morgan filed her second amended complaint (“SAC”) against HipCamp, Freedog, and Falso setting forth causes of action for: (1) General Negligence – alleged as to all defendants; (2) Premises Liability – alleged as to all defendants; (3) Fraud – alleged as to Freedog and Falso; and (4) Breach of Contract – alleged as to HipCamp, Freedog, and Falso.

Following demurrers and a motion to strike, the only remaining causes of action are General Negligence and Premises Liability.

The allegations of the SAC relate to an injury Morgan alleged she sustained on February 14, 2022, at Freedog Farms, a HipCamp “registered host” campsite located at 1350 Highway 101, Gaviota, CA. The injury was the result of an unstable step outside of a sleeping structure.

Freedog served Morgan with discovery, including form interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set two, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one, on May 22, 2024. Freedog served Morgan with form interrogatories, set three, and special interrogatories, set two, on May 28, 2024.

Morgan responded to the discovery, and following meet and confer attempts, Morgan provided amended responses to the discovery.

Following additional meet and confer attempts, Freedog filed the present motions to compel further responses. Morgan was timely served with the motions but has not filed any opposition or other response to the motions.

Analysis:

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

              Separate Statements

“A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following:

              “(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;

              “(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;

              “(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;

              “(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;

              “(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and

              “(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

The court has discretion to disregard a nonconforming separate statement and to deny a motion to compel discovery for failure to comply with the requirements for a proper separate statement. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893; see also Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145 [discussing plaintiff’s failure to adequately support a motion to compel discovery due to a nonconforming separate statement].)

Freedog’s separate statement, in support of the motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, is not full and complete. Rather, it is very confusing. It starts out properly as to No. 1.1. Then, it fails to include the text of Morgan’s responses for any of the subsequent interrogatories. Later, the separate statement makes an argument regarding a definition of “INCIDENT,” and then goes on to discuss, seemingly random, portions of Morgan’s responses. To the extent that the separate statement is nonconforming, the motion will be denied as to each discovery request that does not include the text of Morgan’s responses.

The separate statement is conforming only as to form interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 6.5, 8.1, 8.2 through 8.8 (no response from Morgan), 9.2, and 10.1.

The separate statements in support of the motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories and requests for production of documents do comply with the requirements and will be addressed accordingly.

              Form Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

A party may respond to interrogatories, in writing and under oath, by (1) providing an answer containing the information sought, (2) exercising the option to produce writings, or (3) by objecting to the particular interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.210 subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides that, “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

Freedog seeks further responses to: (1) form interrogatories, set one, Nos. 1.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 9.2, 10.1, and 10.2; (2) form interrogatories, set two, Nos. 1.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 9.1, 9.2, 10.1, and 10.2; (3) form interrogatories, set three, Nos. 1.1 and 17.1. As noted above, Freedog’s separate statement is nonconforming as to all the interrogatories except for Nos. 1.1, 6.5, 8.1, 8.2 through 8.8 (no response from Morgan), 9.2, and 10.1. The motion will be denied as to all other form interrogatories.

For Morgan’s amended responses, Morgan responded in a single document, stating: “As a matter of efficiency, this response consolidates all 3 sets of Form Interrogatories propounded by defendant.”

For form interrogatory No. 1.1, which requires Morgan to: “State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories.” Morgan responded: “Identity of person answering Interrogatories: LeeAnn Morgan, 1472 Lou Dillon Lane #14, Santa Barbara, Ca, 93103. Phone; 805-884-0505. Relationship: Plaintiff.”

Freedog argues that the interrogatory should have been answered separately for each of the three sets of interrogatories. Freedog also argues that the response is not responsive to the interrogatory. Apparently, Freedog takes issue that the response states that Morgan only attests to who answered the interrogatories rather than who prepared or assisted in the preparation. The court does not see the response as evasive or improper. Clearly, Morgan is stating that she is the one that prepared the responses. If no one assisted her, there is no need for her to name any other person. However, the court does agree that the three sets of interrogatories should have been responded to separately rather than in a combined document. Morgan will be required to do so.

Form interrogatories Nos. 6.1 through 6.7 (6 series), in set one, all seek information regarding Morgan’s claimed physical, mental, and emotional injuries. However, only No. 6.5 will be addressed because Freedog failed to include the text of Morgan’s responses to the other interrogatories in the 6 series. For set two, Freedog claims that the interrogatories seek information regarding breach of contract. While Freedog has modified the definition at the beginning of the interrogatories, the interrogatories in question all seek information regarding Morgan’s claimed injuries. Further, as noted above, there is no longer a breach of contract claim being made by Morgan against Freedog, making the contract-based interrogatories irrelevant. Morgan will not be ordered to provide further responses to set two, which are all based on the nonexistent contract claims.

Interrogatory Nos. 6.5, asks Morgan if she has “taken any medication, prescribed or not, as a result of injuries that [Morgan] attribute[s] to the INCIDENT.” Morgan responded: “No. unable to tolerate oral pain medication.”

The sentence after the word “No,” makes the response unclear and evasive. The interrogatory is properly answered with either a “yes” or “no,” without qualification. If the answer is “yes,” Morgan is required to provide additional information. Morgan will be ordered to provide a straightforward, and code-compliant, further response.

Interrogatory No. 8.1, asks: “Do you attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the INCIDENT? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer interrogatories 8.2 through 8.8).” In responses, Morgan stated: “No. [Loss of future earning capacity to be in Statement of Damages at a later date.]”

Freedog argues that the response is non-compliant, evasive, and contradictory. The court agrees. The answer is either “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” Morgan is required to answer interrogatories Nos. 8.2 through 8.8. Morgan failed to provide any response to these interrogatories. She will be ordered to provide code-compliant responses if her further response to No. 8.1 is “yes.”

Interrogatory 9.2 asks: “Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.” Morgan responded:

““Yes:

1. Medicare Bills – defendant possesses PDF document of all provider bills.

2. All medical records from 2-14-22 to 6-1-23. Defendants have issued subpoenas to some but not all involved medical providers and are in possession of the contact info for all providers as listed in the Medicare Bills PDF sent to defendants’ counsel.

[To defendants’ counsel: The above estimate of general/non-economic damages of $402,000.00 represent the estimated “special medical damages” component for this action. However, Special Medicals are only the “starting point” for the Bamboo insurance adjuster to negotiate and do not include the allowed force multipliers that are factored in, which can amount to 2x-5x the Special Medicals, or $804,000.00 to $2,010,000.00. Please consult with the assigned Bamboo Insurance Adjuster on this claim for accurate metrics concerning force multipliers for the General Negligence and Premises Liability Causes of Action in this matter. Plaintiff will be asking for $2,010,000 in the pending demand letter.]”

Freedog argues that the response is evasive and incomplete because it lacks the specific details required by the interrogatory concerning the nature and content of the documents. Freedog further argues that Morgan is “required to describe each supporting document and provide the necessary contact information for the person who has custody of those documents. Finally, Freedog argues that the portion of the response that discusses economic damages and negotiation strategies is improper.

The court agrees with Freedog to a certain extent. The interrogatory requires a straightforward response to what is being asked. Morgan is required to describe each document, and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person(s) who have each document. She has failed to do so and will be ordered to provide a further code-compliant response. She will also be ordered to remove the improper language regarding damages.

Interrogatory No. 10.1 asks: “At any time before the INCIDENT did you have complaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT? If so, for each state: (a) a description of the complaint or injury; (b) the dates it began and ended; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER whom you consulted or who examined or treated you.”

Morgan responded: “Other than the hip arthritis described above, in reference to the lumbar spine injury from the L4-S1 fusion (concealed/unconsented two-level fusion and implantation of unapproved devices) in 2009, Plaintiff was asymptomatic at the time of the 2-14-22 Incident.”

Morgan’s response is evasive, non-responsive, and argumentative regarding a lumbar spine surgery. The interrogatory is straightforward and requires a complete code-compliant straightforward responses. The motion to compel a further response will be granted.

Freedog’s motion with respect to Morgan’s amended definition of “INCIDENT,” will be granted. The term will be understood to as defined in the interrogatories themselves.

As noted above, the motion will be denied as to set two as moot because there is no longer a breach of contract claim asserted against Freedog. Set three only contains interrogatory 17.1. The motion will be denied with respect to set three because Freedog did not include 17.1 in its separate statement.

As Freedog was only partially successful in their motion, no sanctions will be granted.

              Special Interrogatories

Freedog seeks further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 3, 5, and 10 contained in set one, and No. 30 contained in set two.

Interrogatory No. 3 states: “State YOUR knowledge as to any dangerous conditions on the PROPERTY between January 1, 2022 and the INCIDENT.”

Morgan responded: “No knowledge of any dangerous condition with the assigned sleeping trailer on the property on 2-13-22.”

The response fails to directly respond to the interrogatory. Morgan is simply being asked to state her knowledge of any dangerous condition on the property during a specific timeframe. The interrogatory does not ask if Morgan had knowledge of a dangerous condition of the sleeping tailer on a single day. “PROPERTY” is specially defined as “the certain real property commonly known as 1350 Highway 101, Goleta, California 93117.” Morgan will be ordered to provide a code-compliant further response.

Interrogatory No. 5 states: “State all facts that support YOUR contention that DEFENDANT negligently owned, maintained, managed, and operated the premises where injury to YOU occurred.”

Morgan responded:

“1. Defendants Freedog Farms @ Cactus Flower Ranch, LLC (“Freedog”) is a Limited Liability Company (Initial Filing date: 9/6/2019.) Freedog is listed on the California Secretary of State with Entity #2019-25410454. Its CEO is listed as Sierra Falso. The term “Guest” is in the title with the Secretary of State.

2. On the Deed of Trust for the property, Sierra Falso is “Trustor” a.k.a. Sierra Bravo Enterprises, LLC.) Sally Hopkins and Tom Wilks, Falso’s mother and stepfather, respectively, are listed on the Deed of Trust as beneficiaries of the property. The Deed of Trust is dated December 20, 2018.

3. On December 7, 2022, Freedog Farms @ Cactus Flower Ranch also became Entity # 5357814, as a nonprofit, “California Public Benefit Corporation” (Certificate No.:240480329.)

Fact: Please see Photos and video of assigned sleeping structure and constructed step as in #4 above. Video footage shows the defective step shifting under the foot.”

The response fails to provide the information requested. Instead, Morgan makes statements regarding form of entity, the deed of trust, and makes reference to photos and video. Freedog is entitled to discover the facts surrounding Morgan’s contention that Freedog was negligent. Morgan will be ordered to provide a further code-compliant response that addresses what is being asked.

Interrogatory No. 10 asks Morgan to: “IDENTIFY all documents that support YOUR contention that DEFENDANT failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition.”

Morgan responded:

“1) Please see photos and video as in #4 above.

2) Please see defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests. There is no assertion in defendants’ responses that plaintiff received prior warning re defective step adjacent to assigned guest sleeping trailer.”

Again, the response does not address what is asked. Morgan is required to respond to what is actually being sought by way of the interrogatory. The interrogatory is simple. Morgan is required to identify (specially defined as, “the title of the document, its author or originator, its recipient, any date contained thereon, its general subject matter, and identify of the person most recently having possession and control of that document”) all documents that support her contention that Freedog, Falso, or Fiechter failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition.

Morgan will be ordered to provide a further code-compliant response that directly addresses the interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 30 requires that Morgan: “IDENTIFY” the instructor of the advanced tennis lesson YOU participated in on June 1, 2023.”

Morgan responded:

“In defendants’ 8-23-24 Meet-Confer Letter, no reasonable showing with particularity has been made as to how and why plaintiff’s tennis instructor on June 1, 2023 is relevant to this action regarding the 2-13-22 Incident, occurring 14 months prior to 6-1-23. Plaintiff is not “objecting” per CCP 2030.22. However, Plaintiff has the right to know with particularity how all information provided will be used by defendants in this matter. On its face, this question is not supported with the required particularity. Please submit a reasonable showing to the Court as to the relevance of this question to this present matter. If the court finds the question to be reasonable and necessary, plaintiff will provide.”

Morgan has claimed permanent injuries as a result of the incident that is the subject of this action. Freedog, as well as all of the defendants, are entitled to discover the extent of any of Morgan’s injuries. Morgan will be required to provide a code-compliant further response.

Freedog seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,297.50 for attorney fees and costs with bringing the motion.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

The court does not find that Morgan acted with substantial justification in her evasive responses to the form interrogatories, and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Freedog’s counsel has submitted a declaration setting forth his time spent in preparing the motion and the filing fee. The amount requested to reimburse Freedog for the attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion is reasonable and will be awarded.

              Request for Production of Documents

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) “[U]nless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, [the] burden [of showing good cause for the request] is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Freedog has set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320. subd. (a).)

Freedog seeks further responses to requests Nos. 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, and 18. As to the motion to compel further responses to the requests for production, Freedog does not seek sanctions.

Request No. 3 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS RELATING to the injuries allegedly sustained by YOU as a result of the INCIDENT.”

Morgan responded:

“Plaintiff able to partially comply with this request per CCP §2031.220. The production of all documents relating to medical treatment have, since this request was first issued, now been subpoenaed by defendants counsel Burton Kelley. Several providers were served with these subpoenas. Other providers have not yet been served: Pacific Pain Management, Southern California Orthopedic Institute, St. John’s Hospital. Plaintiff has specified that she is allowing subpoenas of all providers listed in the Medicare Bills document from 2-1-22 to 6-1-23. Plaintiff is humanly unable to provide these copious documents listed in the Medicare Bills attachment provided earlier. They are not in her immediate possession. Plaintiff shall allow all subpoenas to be issued. Plaintiff cannot produce the requested records that are under the electronic control of each provider’s medical records departments. Providers have the staff and capability to reasonably produce these records. Please issue further subpoenas for records, as there are several providers on the Medicare Bill list from 2-1-22 to 6-1-23 who have not yet been subpoenaed.”

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . .

“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or

“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, provides:

“(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.

“(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

              “(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

              “(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

“(c)(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

              “(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.”

Morgan’s response is not code compliant. A party may use different forms of discovery to obtain information. Morgan is not permitted to essentially reply that Freedog should be able to get the information by way of subpoenas. She must respond per the code sections set forth above. Those code sections state exactly what is required to properly respond to a request for production of documents. Morgan will be required to provide a further code-compliant response as well as produce any responsive documents.

All of Morgan’s other responses to the at-issue requests for production suffer from the same deficiencies in not complying with the code. Morgan will be ordered to provide further code compliant responses to those also, and will be ordered to produce any responsive documents.