Case Number: BC697068 Hearing Date: March 02, 2020 Dept: O

Defendant State of California’s motion to compel further responses to production of documents, set one is GRANTED. Defendant Lindsay Transportation Solution Sales & Service, LLC is ordered to provide supplemental verified and objectionless responses within 30 days after State of California serves Lindsay the revised supplemental requests.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant State of California, acting through the Department of Transportation, (“State”) moves the court for an order requiring Defendant/Cross-Defendant Lindsay Transportation Solutions Sales & Service, LLC (“Lindsay”) to provide further verified responses to its request for production of documents (set one).

Where verification is required by the discovery statute, an unverified response is ineffective and is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item with any of the following: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing or sampling; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item; or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. (CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Objections must be specific. A motion to compel lies where objections are “too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection of an item or category of item, the response shall, if necessary, include a privilege log that provides sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim. (CCP § 2031.240.)

The requests at issue in this motion seek documents that contain the following categories of documents: documents from all civil litigation cases where Lindsay was named as a defendant from 2011 to present (Request No. 1), and expert disclosures from such cases (Requests Nos. 2 & 3). Ultimately, the issues in these two categories of documents are identical, and the Court will address them all globally.

Request No. 1 asks for: “Any and all discovery responses served by Lindsay […] in connection with any and all civil actions involving the X-Lite Guardrail End Terminal system in which LINDSAY has been named as a defendant from 2011 to present.”

Request No. 2 asks for: “Any and all DOCUMENTS in connection with any and all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26 expert disclosures made by LINDSAY in any and all civil actions involving the X-Lite Guardrail End Terminal system in which LINDSAY has been named as a defendant from 2011 to present.”

Request No. 3 asks for: “Any and all DOCUMENTS in connection with any and all expert disclosures/designation (including any and all expert reports to the extent that disclosure has occurred) made by LINDSAY in any and all civil actions involving the X-Lite Guardrail End Terminal system in which LINDSAY has been named as a defendant from 2011 to present.”

Lindsay responded to these requests by objecting that the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product doctrine, and is not probative of any issue in this case. Furthermore, Lindsay contends that federal courts have routinely held that these so-called “clone discovery” requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, even where some issues overlap.

The State contends, however, that after meeting and conferring regarding these requests, the State has clarified and agreed to limit the instant request to civil actions for personal injury and/or wrongful death that concerns the X-Lite and to which Lindsay is a defendant. Furthermore, the requests specifically asks for discovery responses in prior litigations, which ultimately concerns documents that are not privileged as they have been disclosed and/or produced to other parties/entities by Lindsay before. State also contends that these requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the prior civil actions involved the same product and the same claims.

While Lindsay provides numerous statement of law under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it fails to provide any statement of law under California Civil Procedure (“CCP”), the applicable law that this Court must follow in adjudicating motions in this case.

Lindsay has not shown any case law in California that “clone discovery” is not reasonably calculated under California Law. On the other hand, the State has demonstrated that these requests comply with section 2017.010 and the State has demonstrated good cause for compelling further responses to these requests.

Thus, Motion is GRANTED. State is ordered to send supplemental request to these requests, formally revising its request based on the parties’ prior meet and confer efforts clarifying these questions. Lindsay is then ordered to provide verified and objectionless responses to the revised requests within 30 days from the date State serves Lindsay the revised supplemental requests.