Case Number: BC719282 Hearing Date: December 19, 2019 Dept: 48
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Percy Miller aka “Master P”
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant SoCal The Syndicate, Inc.
PROOF OF SERVICE:
Correct Address: Yes.
16/21 (CCP § 1005(b)): OK. Served by mail on November 15, 2019.
GRANT motion to compel further responses to requests For Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28;
GRANT request for sanctions in the amount of $2,761.
ANALYSIS
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents
¿ Requests For Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28: GRANT.
In the separate statement, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for production of the documents sought.
Defendant’s substantive response is that it will produce responsive, non-privileged relevant documents within its possession, custody, or control that it locates through a reasonable search and that Defendant is continuing to search for such documents. This is the portion of the response which required verification (which was apparently served on August 21, 2019–Pessah Decl, ¶ 5.)
The objections need not be verified, as an attorney need only sign a response as to objections.
As for the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege, where asserted, some responsive documents could conceivably come within the scope of such privileges.
However, Defendant indicates in the opposition that it is not withholding any documents on the basis of privilege or confidentiality. The Court will require Defendant to supplement its response verifying that no documents are being withheld on the basis of privilege, and that all response documents have been produced.
The privacy rights of third parties as to their health information is protected by the terms of the stipulated protective order entered on June 24, 2019. Likewise as to suppliers or customers.
On the other hand, Plaintiff is entitled to discover the identities of potential witnesses, such as purchasers of Defendant’s products. “Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. . . .” CCP § 2017.010.
“[A] percipient witness’s willingness to participate in civil discovery has never been considered relevant—witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify whether they want to or not.” Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1251-52.
Further responses are due within 10 days.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant SoCal and its counsel of record, Nobbe Martens, is GRANTED in the amount of $2,761, jointly and severally. To avoid this motion, it would have been a simple matter for Defendant to provide the supplemental verified responses now being ordered by the Court.