Case Number: 17K00104 Hearing Date: June 18, 2018 Dept: 94

Defendant AMTEC Electronic Engineering & Alarm, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Document, Set No. 2, Requests 1-3, is GRANTED. Cross-Defendant Hoa Huang is ordered to serve responses to the requests within twenty (20) days. Cross-Defendant and his attorney of record are ordered to pay sanctions of $760.00 to AMTEC within thirty (30) days.

Background

Plaintiff Perla Santiago filed the instant action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident against Hoa Huang and Tianxi Wu on January 3, 2017. Moving Defendant AMTEC Electronic Engineering & Alarm, Inc. (“AMTEC”) was added as Doe defendant on February 2, 2017. Thereafter, Defendants Wu and AMTEC Electronic Engineering & Alarm, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against Huang (hereinafter “Cross-Defendant”) on February 16, 2017.

AMTEC filed the instant motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, and award sanctions, against Cross-Defendant on May 14, 2018. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

CCP § 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2031.310(a).)

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, or upon a later date agreed to in writing. Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b)(2).)

CRC, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery, including motions to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents (CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(3)), contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (CRC, Rule 3.1345(a).)

Discussion

AMTEC propounded its second set of request for production of documents on Cross-Defendant on March 7, 2018. (Motion, Settles Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A.) Cross-Defendant responded on April 5, 2018, with attorney/client privilege and expert witness objections to Request Nos. 1-3. (Id. at ¶3 and Exh. B.) AMTEC sent a meet and confer letter regarding the requests on April 13, 2018. (Id. at ¶4 and Exh. C.) AMTEC timely filed the instant motion on May 14, 2017.

All three requests at issue seek electronic data from Cross-Defendant’s 2013 Ford Mustang (“the subject vehicle”), specifically, all (1) Event Data Recorder (“EDR”) data and information; (2) Bosch Crash Data Retrieval (“CDR”) data and information; and (3) Airbag Control Module (“ACM”) data and information. Cross-Defendant objected to the requests on the basis of attorney-client privilege and untimely disclosure of expert witnesses.

AMTEC, however, demonstrates that Cross-Defendant already provided a partial disclosure of the electronic data through his personal injury attorney. Specifically, Cross-Defendant’s personal injury attorney sent AMTEC’s insurance carrier a six page “Vehicle Inspection” report that discusses data downloaded and interpreted from the ACM of the subject vehicle. (Id. at Exh. C.) The report also discusses what information was obtained from the download of the CDR data. (Ibid.) In light of the release of this report regarding the electronic data on the subject vehicle to AMTEC’s insurance carrier, the court finds that Cross-Defendant cannot claim object on the basis of attorney-client privilege to the discovery requests at issue.

Finally, the court agrees that the objection on the basis of untimely disclosure of expert witnesses is improper. The requests seek only the electronic data stored in the EDR, CDR and ACM, not any party of witness identifying information.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Document, Set No. 2, Requests 1-3, is granted.

Monetary sanctions are warranted pursuant to CCP section 2023.010(a)(5) due to the objections made without substantial justification. Plaintiff seeks $760.00 ($175/hour x 4 hours) in sanctions for the instant motion. (Id. at ¶7.) The court finds this reasonable in light of AMTEC’s efforts to resolve this dispute.

Cross-Defendant is ordered to produce further responses to Request for Production of Document Nos. 1 and 2 within 20 days. Cross-Defendant and his attorney of record are ordered to pay AMTEC sanctions of $760.00 within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.