Case Number: BC503777??? Hearing Date: July 26, 2016??? Dept: 92
GRAYCEE MCDONALD,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HCL INGLEWOOD VILLAGE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC503777
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSThis action arises out of a slip and fall at a shopping center owned and operated by Defendant HCL Inglewood Village, LLC (?HCL?). Plaintiff alleges that approximately 8-10 steps outside of Bed Bath Beyond, Inc?s (?BBB?) store, she tripped over a poorly maintained sidewalk and injured herself.
On 1/27/16, Defendant propounded demand for production of documents, set six on Plaintiff. The demand consisted of one demand; RPD 40 sought production of documents that reflect medical providers in connection with the subject incident. On 3/18/15, Plaintiff served a response. The response indicates that Plaintiff is not producing any documents at this time, is in the process of obtaining the documents, and notes that discovery is ongoing and Plaintiff reserves her right to supplement the response at any time.
At this time, Defendant moves to compel production of documents responsive to RPD 40. Defendant indicates its motion is brought per CCP ??2023 and 2031. Neither of these is a code section; all of the code sections in connection with 2023 and 2031 consist of sub-parts. The motion itself contains argument based on violations of ?2031.300, 2031.310, and 2031.320. These code sections, however, each have separate applications. ?2031.300 applies when no responses are served. ?2031.310 applies when responses are served, but are not adequate/satisfactory. ?2031.320 applies when a response promises production of documents, but documents are not produced.
The correct motion in this case would have been a motion under ?2031.310 ? a motion to compel further responses on the ground that objections were waived and that the response (refusal to produce documents) was insufficient. Such a motion must be made within 45 days after service of the response (?2031.310(c)), must include a separate statement (CRC 3.1345), and, in the personal injury court, can only be made after participation in an IDC (Fourth Amended General Order dated 1/26/15). Defendant?s motion failed to comply with any of the above, and is therefore denied.
The Court notes that Plaintiff does not seek sanctions in connection with her opposition, and therefore none are imposed.