RICHARD R. VS. DOE 1, AN INDIVIDUAL ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC22603294 - September 8, 2025 Hearing date: September 8, 2025 Case number: CGC22603294 Case title: RICHARD R. VS. DOE 1, AN INDIVIDUAL ET AL Case Number: | | CGC22603294 | Case Title: | | RICHARD R. VS. DOE 1, AN INDIVIDUAL ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-08 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion To Compel The Production Of Documents Demanded In The Deposition Notice Of Defendant Doe 3'S Person Most Qualified; Request For Sanctions; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities And Declaration Of Alex M. Valenzuela, Esq. In Support Thereof | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, September 8, 2025, Line 9, PLAINTIFF RICHARD R.'S Motion To Compel The Production Of Documents Demanded In The Deposition Notice Of Defendant Doe 3's Person Most Qualified; Request For Sanctions. (Part 1 of 2)

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Demanded in the Deposition Notice of Defendant Doe 3's Person most Knowledgeable is DENIED.

Plaintiff moves under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450. Subdivision (a) of this section reads as follows: "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, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice."

This is clearly a motion to compel further responses and production on the document demand in the PMK deposition. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230.)

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate adequate meet and confer. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(b)(2).) Adequate meet and confer would show a reasonable and good faith effort to informally resolve the issues prior to bringing them to the court for resolution. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.) The record demonstrates Defendant Doe 3 proposed an appropriate protective order and Plaintiff failed to reasonably engage or make any effort, let alone one that was reasonable and in good faith, to resolve the issue before filing its motion.

Plaintiff failed to provide a separate statement consistent with the Civil Discovery Act. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(3); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Indeed, Plaintiff does not include in Defendant Doe 3's response the discussion regarding the protective order or Plaintiff's response. The idea of a separate statement is to provide the court with a concise outline of all the facts relevant to the discovery motion. It was not until it reviewed the opposition that the court learned anything about the protective order proposal. Plaintiff should have disclosed and discussed the proposal and his response in the separate statement. By not doing so, he misled the court.

Defendant Doe 3 has established the merit of its privacy objection to Request # 2. Defendant Doe 3's protective order proposal was entirely justified, reasonable and in good faith. Plaintiff's failure to engage was unjustified, unreasonable and not in good faith. Defendant Doe 3's privacy objection is sustained.

Defendant Doe 3 has established the merit of its privacy objection to Request # 2. Defendant Doe 3's protective order proposal was entirely justified, reasonable and in good faith. Plaintiff's failure to engage was unjustified, unreasonable and not in good faith. Defendant Doe 3's privacy objection is sustained.

The court, however, does not agree that the cut off year is 1983. In this case, a request for documents through 1985 would be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.) (Tentative ruling continues, see Part 2 of 2) |