Case Number: BC678208 Hearing Date: October 19, 2018 Dept: 3

AMI ADHVARYU,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

DOLORES AYALA, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC678208

[TENATATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

October 19, 2018

Plaintiff, Ami Adhvaryu filed this action against Defendants, Dolores Ayala and Jacobo Ayala for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant, Dolores Ayala, including requests for production of documents. Defendant served responses. The parties met and conferred, and ultimately the parties participated in an informal discovery conference. Plaintiff’s attorney declares that, at the end of the IDC, Defendant agreed to sign a consent form to permit her cell phone provider to produce telephone records from thirty minutes prior to the accident, the time of the accident, and thirty minutes after the accident. Plaintiff’s attorney also declares that the time agreed upon to sign the consent has come and gone, and Defendant has not complied with her agreement.

At this time, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPDs 5, 6, and 7, which are the RPDs that seek production of Defendant’s mobile phone records. Defendant opposes, contending the motion is moot as the consent has been provided. Plaintiff, in reply, argues the request for sanctions is not moot, and should be granted.

The Court finds sanctions are not appropriate because the motion, to the extent it is not moot, would need to be substantively denied. Plaintiff moves to compel “further responses” to RPDs 5, 6, and 7. She moves pursuant to CCP §§2031.210 and 2031.310 (see notice of motion, page 2, line 11). §2031.210 provides for the form and content of a party’s response to RPDs. §2031.310 governs motions to compel further responses. It is not clear what further response Plaintiff wishes to compel. Notably, with respect to RPDs 5 and 6, Defendant specifically agrees to produce the subject records. With respect to RPD 7, Defendant indicates there are no such responsive records. None of the responses include objections, and all of the responses appear to be full, complete, and Code-compliant.

Instead, it appears Plaintiff is really seeking to compel Defendant to “sign a consent form.” This request for relief does not appear anywhere in the notice of motion, and there is no authority presented in support of the request in the points and authorities. Indeed, the request for relief is only mentioned at page five of the points and authorities, wherein Plaintiff argues Defendant should be ordered to provide further responses, produce subject documents, and/or sign a consent form.

To the extent Plaintiff is making a motion to compel Defendant to produce the records, such motion is governed by CCP §2031.320; this section governs motions to compel production of documents after a party agrees to produce documents but then fails to actually do so. Plaintiff did not cite §2031.320 in her moving papers and did not provide any authority for her request to have Defendant produce the records. This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to make a motion to compel production if she chooses to do so.

To the extent Plaintiff is making a motion to compel Defendant to sign a consent form, the Court does not know of any authority permitting it to enter such an order. This ruling is also without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing a properly noticed motion to compel Defendant to sign a consent form; if Plaintiff brings such a motion, she must include on point authority establishing the Court can grant the relief sought.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied because her motion would be denied if it were not moot, such that imposition of sanctions is not warranted.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.