Terry Lucas vs The James Joyce Inc

Case Number

24CV03219

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 08/22/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, plaintiff Terry Lucas’ motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. The motion to compel is granted as to requests for production of documents Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, and 12. The motion to compel is also granted as to request No. 13 as modified to require production of: “Any and all reports that REFLECT any complimentary alcoholic beverages provided by DEFENDANT, either prior to or during the INCIDENT, to any PERSONS who were providing SECURITY SERVICES for DEFENDANT on the date of the INCIDENT.”

            a. Defendant The James Joyce, Inc. shall provide further, code-compliant, responses to requests for production of documents Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 13, without objection except as to privilege, along with production of the documents, no later than September 12, 2025.

            b. Defendant shall redact any third-party social security numbers, bank account information, pay rate, and wages earned from any document that contains such information. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not to be redacted.

            c. For any documents withheld on a claim of privilege, defendant shall provide a privilege log identifying each responsive document withheld on the ground of privilege together with sufficient additional information, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, for plaintiff to evaluate the claim of privilege.

            d. All documents produced shall be subject to a protective order and shall not be used or disclosed for any purpose other than the present action.

2. The motion to compel is denied as to request for production of documents No. 9.

3. The motion is moot as to requests for production of documents Nos. 7 and 8.

Background: 

This action commenced on June 7, 2024, by the filing of the Judicial Council Form Complaint for personal injury by plaintiff Terry Lucas against defendant The James Joyce, Inc.

By way of his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on June 18, 2023:

“At all relevant times, Defendant, The James Joyce, Inc. operated an Irish Pub called The James Joyce (the Pub) located at 513 State Street, Santa Barbara, California, 93101. On or about the late evening of June 18, 2023, Plaintiff was patronizing the Pub. Another patron at the Pub violently assaulted and battered Plaintiff, causing a skull fracture and other severe injuries. The Pub’s employees and security detail, all of whom were agents and or employees of Defendant, failed to do their duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the assault from occurring or to protect Plaintiff during the assault. Had the employees and security detail taken reasonable steps to prevent the assault from occurring or to protect Plaintiff during the assault, Plaintiff would not have suffered his injuries.

“Defendant also negligently failed to train and supervise its employees and agents, including the security detail, to protect the Pub’s customers from assaults such as the assault that occurred against Plaintiff. Had Defendant implemented proper training, Plaintiff would have not been assaulted or would have been properly protected during the assault, and would not have suffered the resulting injuries.”

On August 30, 2024, defendant filed its answer to the complaint with a general denial and 13 affirmative defenses.

On December 5, 2024, plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents, set one (RFPs), on defendant. (Marshall Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. 1.) On February 7, 2025, defendant responded to the RFPs. (Id. at ¶ 5 & Exh. 2.)

Following meet and confer efforts, on April 4, 2025, defendant supplemented some of its responses to the RFPs and provided a meet and confer response letter providing its reasons for declining to supplement the other responses, including RFP Nos. 4, 5, and 7 through 13. (Marshall Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7 & Exhs. 3, 4.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to RFPs 4, 5, and 7 through 13.

Defendant opposes the motion.

Analysis:

            Subsequent Responses

As an initial matter, by way of declaration, defendant provides undisputed evidence that on August 11, 2025 (after the filing of the present motion), it served its second supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 7 and 8. (Dellecker Decl., ¶ 9 & Exh. G.)

By way of reply, plaintiff acknowledges the further responses but argues that the response to RFP No. 7 is still deficient due to the numerous boilerplate objections. Despite plaintiff’s argument, the second supplemental responses moot the present motion with respect to RFP Nos. 7 and 8. As such, they will not be addressed here. The court will rule on the motion with respect to RFP Nos. 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 only. Should plaintiff so wish, he may attempt further meet and confer efforts regarding the supplemental responses and, if those are unsuccessful, file a procedurally proper motion.

            Requests for Production

“Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. “ ‘[I]t is a ‘ “central precept” ’ of the Civil Discovery Act . . . that discovery ‘ “be essentially self-executing[.]” ’ ” [Citations.]” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390.)

“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.)

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.”

“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.”

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.)

“Courts must insist discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as weapons to wage litigation. These tools should be well calibrated; the lancet is to be preferred over the sledgehammer.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221.). “Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless.” (Id. at p. 223.)

Request No. 4 seeks: “Any and all reports created by DEFENDANT or any insurer in relation to the INCIDENT.”

In response, defendant responded:

“Responding Party objects that the phrase ‘incident’ is compound, calls for speculation, and is unintelligible, insofar as it presumes Plaintiff’s allegations are true, which Responding Party denies. Responding Party objects that the terms ‘reports’ and ‘insurer’ are vague and ambiguous. Responding party objects that the request calls for speculation and is compound. Responding party objects that the request is vague and ambiguous. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects that the request is unreasonably broad as to time and scope and is harassing and burdensome. Responding Party objects that the request is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party also objects to the extent this request seeks disclosure of confidential, personnel and employee records or information. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) Responding Party objects that the request calls for a legal conclusion and assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party responds as follows: A diligent search and a reasonable inquiry having been made, this Responding Party cannot comply with this request because it has never had responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control.”

Defendant has somewhat complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, at the end of its response, by stating: “A diligent search and a reasonable inquiry having been made, this Responding Party cannot comply with this request because it has never had responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control.” However, by asserting numerous objections, the implication is that there are responsive documents that are being withheld on the basis of the objections. Otherwise, defendant would have just stated: “A diligent search and a reasonable inquiry having been made, this Responding Party cannot comply with this request because it has never had responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control,” and left it at that.

Request No. 4, on its face, seeks relevant documents pertaining directly to the incident. It is now for defendant to justify its objections.

It is clear that defendant’s objections, other than those based on claims of privilege and of third-party privacy, are simply boilerplate objections that are not reasonably directed at what is being requested. In fact, some of the “objections” are not even proper with respect to RFPs. As just one example, “calls for a legal conclusion” makes no sense in the context of RFPs and is not a valid objection. Requests for production are a discovery tool designed to obtain tangible evidence, not to elicit legal reasoning or conclusions. While the court recognizes that it is common practice for attorneys to respond to discovery requests with multiple boilerplate objections, they should not do so. Asserting unmeritorious boilerplate objections is sanctionable conduct under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subd. (e). Had plaintiff requested monetary sanctions the court would have been inclined to grant them.

As to the third-party privacy objections:

“The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. [Citation.] Protection of informational privacy is the provision’s central concern. [Citation.] In [Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 (Hill)], we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right 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. [Citation.]” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th 531at p. 552.)

“The first Hill factor, whether “ ‘a legally recognized privacy interest’ ” exists, is always an issue of law. The second and third factors, the existence of “ ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances’ ” and the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, may be resolved by a court as a matter of law when there are no disputed material facts. [Citation.]” (Williams, supra, at p. 531, fn. 7.)

Here, defendant has not established a legally protected privacy interest. The request does not even facially appear to seek any documents that would implicate third-party privacy rights. It simply seeks reports related to the incident. As such, there is no expectation of privacy or any invasion of that privacy. Even if defendant had established a legally protected privacy interest, the court would have, in balancing any possible intrusion into the privacy of third parties, found in favor of discovery.

Other than objections based on a claim of privilege, defendant’s objections are overruled, and defendant will be ordered to provide a further code-compliant response. As will be the case for all of the RFPs below: For any document withheld based on a claim of privilege, defendant will be ordered to provide a privilege log containing sufficient information to allow plaintiff to assess the merit of the claim pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1).

Request No. 5 seeks: “Any and all reports REFLECTING any investigations by DEFENDANT or any insurer in relation to the INCIDENT.”

Defendant’s response to request No. 5 is identical to the response to request No. 4 except that it also objects to the term “investigations” as being vague and ambiguous. It is not.

The response is non-compliant for the same reasons that the response to request No. 4 is non-compliant. Defendant will be ordered to provide a further code-compliant response to request No. 5 with the same conditions as set forth above.

Request No. 9 seeks: “Any and all payroll records for all PERSONS providing SECURITY SERVICES for DEFENDANT on the date of the INCIDENT.”

Defendant’s response to request No. 9 essentially asserts the same objections as are asserted in response to the other requests, except that defendant does not make a representation of inability to comply.

Plaintiff argues that the requested information is discoverable because: “The requested documents will reveal discoverable information including potential percipient witnesses, security services person staffing levels at the time of the incident, and potential additionally liable parties. Payroll records will also reflect any complimentary food or beverages provided to security service individuals, such as alcoholic beverages. Payroll records will also reflect potential negligence of Defendant through understaffing.”

The court is not convinced that payroll records will show what it is that plaintiff argues they will show. Payroll records would only likely show how many hours a particular person worked and how much they were paid. Financial information of third parties certainly implicates important privacy rights.

Plaintiff has not made a fact specific showing of relevancy and, even if he had, the privacy rights of third parties in their personal financial information, in this instance, would outweigh any benefit to plaintiff of obtaining the payroll records. The motion will be denied as to request No. 9.

Request No. 10 seeks: “Any and all time keeping records for all PERSONS providing SECURITY SERVICES for DEFENDANT on the date of the INCIDENT.”

Defendant’s response to request No. 10 is essentially identical to his response to request No. 9.

Plaintiff’s argument for production of the time keeping records is: “The requested documents will reveal discoverable information including potential percipient witnesses, security services person staffing levels at the time of the incident, and potential additionally liable parties. Time keeping records will also reflect potential negligence of Defendant through understaffing.”

The court agrees with plaintiff’s arguments of relevance. The request for time keeping records is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Also, time keeping records are not likely to implicate any third-party privacy rights. If in fact the time keeping records do contain information in which the third parties have a right to privacy, defendant shall redact any social security numbers, bank account information, pay rate, and wages earned. Defendant has not justified its objections and a further response to request No. 10 will be ordered. To be clear, the employees’ names, telephone numbers, and addresses are not to be redacted. Plaintiff has the right to discovery of potential percipient witnesses.

Request No. 11 seeks: “Any and all work schedules for all PERSONS providing SECURITY SERVICES for DEFENDANT on the date of the INCIDENT.”

Defendant’s response to request No. 11 contains the same objections as the other responses and is followed by a representation of inability to comply. The motion will be granted as to request No. 11 for the same reasons as requests Nos. 4 and 10. To the extent that responsive documents exist, and in the unlikely event that the work schedules contain information in which the third parties have a right to privacy, defendant shall redact any social security numbers, bank account information, pay rate, and wages earned.

Request No. 12 seeks: “Any and all written warnings or disciplinary actions taken against any PERSONS who were providing SECURITY SERVICES for DEFENDANT on the date of the INCIDENT.”

Defendant’s response to request No. 12 is essentially identical to the response to request No. 11. It contains objections followed by a statement of inability to comply. The response is deficient for the same reasons that the responses to requests Nos. 4, 10, and 11 are deficient. The motion will be granted as to request No. 12 and, to the extent that responsive documents exist, subject to the same potential redactions as set forth above.

Request No. 13 seeks: “Any and all reports that REFLECT any complimentary food or beverages provided by DEFENDANT to any PERSONS who were providing SECURITY SERVICES for DEFENDANT on the date of the INCIDENT.

Defendant’s response to request No. 13 again contains the same objections followed by a statement of inability to comply.

Plaintiff essentially claims that a security guard can be seen drinking in a video that was provided by defendant. Defendant argues that the person was not working at the time of the video.

While the court does find that plaintiff has met his burden of making a fact specific showing of relevance as to the providing of alcoholic beverages to security personnel on the date of the incident, either prior to or during the incident, the court does not see any relevance in a security guard eating, drinking non-alcoholic beverages, or consuming alcoholic beverages post-incident. As such, the court will modify the request to state: “Any and all reports that REFLECT any complimentary alcoholic beverages provided by DEFENDANT, either prior to or during the INCIDENT, to any PERSONS who were providing SECURITY SERVICES for DEFENDANT on the date of the INCIDENT.”

Plaintiff did not request monetary sanctions so none will be awarded.