GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

24CV003721: GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC 08/19/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Country Club Cinema, LLC to Provide Further Amended Responsive Documents to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Shelby Greenhill’s motion to compel Defendant Country Club Cinema, LLC’s further responses to requests for production is ruled upon as follows.

At issue on this motion is Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s requests for production. Plaintiff contends that the responses are insufficient and contain meritless objections.

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).)

At the outset, while Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to requests nos. 1-9, 11-19, 21, 26-28, 31, 34-38, 41, and 44-47, Defendant argues that Plaintiff only met and conferred with respect to requests nos. 22, 35, 36 and 41. Defendant is correct. As seen from Plaintiff’s counsel’s December 23, 2024, meet-and-confer letter regarding Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production, Plaintiff only raised issues with respect to Defendant’s responses to requests nos. 22, 35, 36 and 41. (Telfer Decl.

Exh. 3.) That three-page letter, while generally referring to “all” of Defendant’s responses, only provided a specific discussion of nos. 22, 35, 36, and 41 and concluded with a demand for Defendant to amend its “response to the Request for Production of Documents Nos. 22, 35, 36 and 41 and produce responsive documents as outlined above, by December 27, 2024 or extend my time to file a Motion to Compel.” (Id. [emphasis in original].)

CCP § 2031.310(b) expressly requires that a motion to compel further responses to requests for production be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration pursuant to § 2016.040. This latter provision states in its entirety: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP § 2016.040 (b) [emphasis added].) The Discovery Act “requires that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Clement v.

Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) The rule is designed to encourage parties to work out their differences and lessen financial expenditures and burdens upon the parties and the court. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431,1435.) “‘[A] reasonable and good faith effort at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing]

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV003721: GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC 08/19/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Country Club Cinema, LLC to Provide Further Amended Responsive Documents to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

counsel.... Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement, supra. 177 Cal.App.4th at 1294 [quoting Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1439].) The meet and confer process requires “a serious attempt to obtain an ‘informal resolution of each issue.’” (Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1439.) The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements discussed above with respect to requests nos. 1-9, 11-19, 21, 26-28, 31, 34, 37, 38, and 44-47.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet-and-confer letter was silent with respect to these requests and therefore Plaintiff failed to show a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution these requests. On this basis, the motion is denied as to requests nos. 1-9, 11-19, 21, 26-28, 31, 34, 37, 38, and 44-47. (Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1439 [court has discretion to deny motion to compel based on failure to meet and confer].)

Given that Plaintiff only met and conferred with respect to requests nos. 22, 35, 36, and 41, and because Plaintiff does not even seek to compel a further response to no. 22, the only requests properly at issue are nos. 35, 36, and 41. Requests nos. 35, 36, and 41 asked Defendant to produce all documents relied upon in responding to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories-employment nos. 201.5, 201.6, and 211.1. Defendant objected to requests nos. 35 and 36 on the basis that they violate the privacy rights of its employees. Defendant objected to request no. 41 on the basis that it calls for the premature disclosure of expert witness information.

In opposition, Defendant makes no attempt to justify the objections interposed to these requests. Instead, with respect to requests nos. 35 and 36, Defendant indicates that it informed Plaintiff it did not rely on documents to respond to form interrogatories-employment nos. 201.5, and 201.6. To the extent that this is the case and Defendant has no responsive documents, it must provide a further response in accordance with CCP § 2031.230. In addition, the privacy objection must be removed. The party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections has the burden to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Having failed to do so, the objections are overruled.

With respect to request no. 41, Defendants asserts that there were no responsive documents relied upon in answering form interrogatory 211.1, because Defendant objected to that interrogatory. However, as seen from the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to form interrogatories-employment, Defendant was ordered to provide a further response to form interrogatory 211.1 as requested by Plaintiff in the moving papers. Further, the sole objection interposed was that the request called for the premature disclosure of expert witness information. Again, Defendant made no attempt to justify that objection and it is overruled.

The Court notes that Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s responses failed to comply with CCP § 2031.280. CCP § 2031.280(a) states that any documents produced in response to a demand “shall

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV003721: GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC 08/19/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Country Club Cinema, LLC to Provide Further Amended Responsive Documents to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 53

be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” This section is not a basis for a further response, the only relief actually set forth in the notice of motion. To that end, CCP § 2031.280(a) only provides that any documents actually produced shall be labeled to correspond to a request, not that a response to a request contain any specific information in that regard.

In short, the motion is granted as to requests nos. 35, 36 and 41. It is denied as to the remainder of the requests.

No later than September 2, 2025, Defendant shall serve a further verified response to Plaintiff’s requests for production nos. 35, 36, and 41, consistent with the above.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce documents through this same motion, the Court finds that the motion is premature. First, the notice of motion only seeks an order compelling a further response. Second, Defendant has not yet provided a complete statement in its responses which were properly at issue in this motion that responsive documents exist and will be produced. Given that the Court has now ruled upon Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses, Defendant must first provide supplemental verified responses in light of the Court’s rulings.

A motion to compel production is only proper where a party has agreed to produce documents but has failed to do so in compliance with its statement. (CCP § 2031.320(a).) Nonetheless, the Court expects that the parties will cooperate to coordinate production of responsive documents upon Defendant’s service of its further responses in light of this Court’s order.

No sanctions were requested and none are awarded.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.