Case Number: BC594206 Hearing Date: March 13, 2018 Dept: 47

Mildred Mae Mendoza, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION, SET TWO

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Mildred Mae Mendoza, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants County of Los Angeles and Anselmo Gonzalez

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Decedent Frank Mendoza, Sr. was accidentally shot by a Sheriff’s Deputy when he exited his home into which an escaped parolee had entered after exchanging gunfire with Sheriff’s Deputies.

Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant County of Los Angeles to respond to the request for production and inspection, set two.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Mildred Mae Mendoza, et al.’s motion to compel a formal response to the Request for Production and Inspection (Set Two) is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve a code-compliant written response without any objections to said request within 10 days.

However, to the extent that the Plaintiffs are seeking an additional order instructing the Defendants to actually produce the gun at issue for inspection, that request is DENIED as premature.

DISCUSSION:

Defendants’ “objection letter” of January 17, 2018 (contained as Exhibit “C” to the Declaration of John V. McNulty, Esq.) was not a formal response to same. By its own words, it was a “meet and confer” letter.[1] Nothing more; nothing less.

Indeed, even if the January 17th letter was somehow a formal response (which it wasn’t), it is clear that any and all objections have been waived due its untimeliness. CCP § 2031.300 (a).

Since there has never been a formal response served to said request, there is no time limit in which to bring a motion to compel a response. (Cf., CCP § 2031.300 (b) [motion to compel a response] with CCP § 2031.310 (c) [motion to compel further response]).

However, to the extent that the Plaintiffs are seeking an additional order instructing the Defendants to actually produce the gun at issue for inspection, that request is DENIED as premature. (See, e.g., Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, etc., p. 3, lines 12-17). Only if a responding party indicates in a code-compliant written response that it would comply with such demand, and fails to do so, may a propounding party bring a motion to compel compliance.

(a) If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.

CCP § 2031.320(a).

At most, at this point Plaintiffs are entitled to an order compelling Defendants to serve a code-compliant written response without objections.[2]

Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2018 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court