Source: https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2019-july/common-mistakes-and-pitfalls-in-responses-to-requests-for-production-of-documents
Timestamp: 2020-07-13 05:37:30
Document Index: 587282

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2031', '§ 2031', '§ 2031', '§ 2031', '§ 2031', '§ 2031', '§ 2031', '§ 2031', '§ 2031', '§ 2031', '§ 2031']

In the last several years in which I have presided over both a Personal Injury and an Independent Calendar courtroom at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, I have found that the most typical area of discovery disputes involve a motion to compel a further response (“MTCFR”) to RPDs. I estimate that I grant approximately 90+% of such motions for one simple reason: The responses at issue are not “code-compliant.” It is the goal of this article to educate both the Bar (as well as perhaps even the Bench) of the common mistakes and pitfalls concerning such formal responses, and moreover, to educate litigators as to how to ensure that their client’s formal responses to RPDs are “code-compliant.”
In order to approach this task, it is best to first understand the fundamental purpose of the formal response itself, as opposed to other collateral matters such as the actual production of the documents – suffice it to state, they are not the same. The purpose of the response is to clearly inform the demanding party as to what you (the responding party) are going to do for each individual RPD. The response is not intended nor designed to identify (or even actually produce) the specific documents you will be producing.
The easiest and non-controversial response is when the responding party has agreed to produce all documents for production without objection. A common mistake, though, is that such a formal response does not contain the mandatory language under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 2031.220. For example, many CCP § 2031.220 responses merely state: “See the attached documents [or Bate Stamp numbers 00001 to 10000”] or perhaps they simply describe each document they intend or are concurrently producing with the response. This is not a code-compliant response, since it is unclear as to whether you are producing all or part of the responsive documents in your current possession, custody or control.
For a response that contains a “partial objection” to a demand, the responding party must comply with CCP § 2031.240 (a). For example, a typical RPD response will contain several objections, and then state: “Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. . .” In such a case, you must still comply with CCP § 2031.220 and/or CCP § 2031.230 (as the case may be) to the “remainder of that item or category.”
As to the “inability to comply” response, per CCP § 2031.230, this response is not telling the propounding party that you are “refusing” to comply, it merely tells them that you are “unable” to comply for certain reasons. Once again, this response must contain certain mandatory language. A common mistake is when a responding party states, in essence, “. . . the inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party.” This implies, though, that the responding party had previous possession, custody or control of such documents. So, what happened to them? Perhaps you meant that they “have never been” in such possession, custody or control? On the other hand, if they are “no longer” in the possession, custody or control of the responding party, it is fair that you should explain what happened to them, to wit, whether they were “lost, misplaced, or stolen,” or perhaps even destroyed or discarded. Simply put, you need to let the responding party know what happened to any documents you “no longer possess.”
For a response that contains only an objection(s), the responding party must comply with CCP § 2031.240 (b) (1) and (2). The failure to comply with this particular section is the most common error of a responding party, which automatically renders the response to be non-code-compliant.
Indeed, it has been recently held that a responding party cannot avoid complying with the express obligations of CCP § 2031.240 (b) (1) and (2), based upon a “burdensome” objection. (See Riddell, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 755, 722.)
Another common mistake in MTCFR to RPDs is when the moving party essentially complains that certain documents (or that no documents at all) have been produced to date. That fact, if true, has nothing to do directly with an MTCFR. This situation would involve a different statutory motion. For example, if the responding party has failed to produce the promised documents, per its formal response, then you must file a motion to compel compliance with that response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.) If the documents have been improperly produced, in that they were not produced “in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand,” then one must file a motion to comply with CCP § 2031.280, vis-à-vis CCP § 2031.320. The good news is that none of those motions are subject to a 45-day jurisdictional time limit, nor do they require a “meet and confer” or a separate statement under CRC, rule 3.1345. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 (c).)
Randolph M. Hammock is a Superior Court Judge, currently sitting in an Independent Calendar (“IC”) Court at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, in which he presides over unlimited civil cases. He graduated from San Diego State University (1980) and the University of San Diego, School of Law (1983). During his almost 25 years of practicing law (primarily as a civil trial attorney), Judge Hammock was admitted to and actively practiced law in a total of 15 states, as well as over 20 federal district courts and courts of appeal. As such, he is likely to have had passed more bar exams than any other practicing lawyer in the United States. He was a member of LATLA/CAALA from the mid 1980s to his appointment as a Superior Court Referee in the juvenile dependency court in 2008, where he served until he was elected as a Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court in 2010. He has been a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) since 2000.
Judiciary and Judicial Perspective, Law and Motion Practice