Posted in Code Compliant Demand, Responses and Objections UPDATED OCTOBER 21, 2020 C.C.P. CCP 2031.240(b). shall apply: (1) If a demand for production does not specify a form or forms for producing a type CCP 2031.285(b). 4 The deadline runs from the date the verified response is served, not from the date originally set for production or inspection. 2023.010-2023.040. If the date for inspection has been extended pursuant to Section 2031.270, the documents shall be produced on the date agreed to pursuant to that section. . objects to a specified form for producing the information, or if no form is specified In an unlimited civil case (cases for more than $25,000), each party may make an unlimited number 4th 216, 224 (rejecting facts supporting the production of documents that were in a separat California Department of Health Care Services Motions to Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, and for monetary sanctions is granted. Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (CCP 2030.300) for California Elisa Cario is a law clerk in the Litigation Department. In other words, there is some good reason you do not want to produce such document(s). . (Sexton v. Super. On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. The statement must set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. 2023.010(c), which protects parties from impermissibly burdensome or expensive discovery procedures, trumps the new identification requirement? For more detailed information, including local rules, onresponses to requests for productionin a specificCalifornia SuperiorCourt, please see the SmartRulesCaliforniaResponse to Request for ProductionGuidesfor the court where your action is pending. (added eff 6/29/09). 3 CCP 2031.285(c)(2). CCP 2031.030(c)(3). (b) The documents shall be produced on the date specified in the demand pursuant to Civ. S NAZARYAN ET AL VS GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL, PACAS, CHRIS VS FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY X LP. (amended eff 6/29/09). Riddle et al. (Code Civ. If only part of an item in a demand is objectionable, the response must contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. According to the California Senate Judiciary Committee, the change will provide more streamlined and responsive document production, if at the slight expense of the producing parties. But it takes time and money to clearly articulate the connections between each document, or category of documents, and the relevant demands, as described by the California Senate Judiciary Committee. (added eff 6/29/09). According to the California Senate Judiciary Committee, the change will provide more streamlined and responsive document production, if at the slight expense of the producing parties. But it takes time and money to clearly articulate the connections between each document, or category of documents, and the relevant demands, as described by the California Senate Judiciary Committee. (amended eff 6/29/09). . Id. (eff 6/29/09). shall bear the same number and be in the same sequence as the corresponding item or (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. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. Another common mistake in MTCFR to RPDs is when the moving party essentially complains that certain documents (or that no documents at all) have been produced to date. (2) The partys failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903. On the other hand, if they are no longer in the possession, custody or control of the responding party, it is fair that you should explain what happened to them, to wit, whether they were lost, misplaced, or stolen, or perhaps even destroyed or discarded. 227466 Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes, a free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1348(a); see also Code of Civ. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.comare intended for general information purposes only. Depending on which formal response one utilizes, there will be mandatory language which must be contained in each response. q d It tells the responding party what type of documents you have that you dont want to produce, so the demanding party may then determine whether or not to challenge the failure to produce those documents, in view of the stated legal basis for the refusal to produce them. . The purpose of the response is to clearly inform the demanding party as to what you (the responding party) are going to do for each individual RPD. . Civ. Indeed, it has been recently held that a responding party cannot avoid complying with the express obligations of CCP 2031.240 (b) (1) and (2), based upon a burdensome objection. (Emphasis added.) . F I L E In other words, to the extent the party (or his/her lawyers) do not have possession or custody of such medical records, the party certainly has reasonable control of such documents. The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. Any documents produced in response to a demand must either be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand. Elisa graduated from NYU School of Law, where she interned for the Honorable Edgardo Ramos in the Southern District of New York and served as the Editor-in-Chief of theNYU Review of Law & Social Change. For example, if the responding party has failed to produce the promised documents, per its formal response, then you must file a motion to compel compliance with that response. All rights reserved. (2) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than For example, many CCP 2031.220 responses merely state: See the attached documents [or Bate Stamp numbers 00001 to 10000] or perhaps they simply describe each document they intend or are concurrently producing with the response. Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents for 2031.210 (a) (1)- (3). In conclusion, when preparing the formal responses to an RPD, one should keep these requirements and suggested practices in mind. ), The moving party must state specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (Code of Civ. In other words, there is some good reason you do not want to produce such document(s). On June 7, 2016 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses. This is the mandatory language which must be used, verbatim, in such a response. For a response that contains only an objection(s), the responding party must comply with CCP 2031.240 (b) (1) and (2).5 The failure to comply with this particular section is the most common error of a responding party, which automatically renders the response to be non-code-compliant. H a 10. A common mistake, though, is that such a formal response does not contain the mandatory language under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 2031.220.2 For example, many CCP 2031.220 responses merely state: "See the attached documents [or Bate Stamp numbers 00001 to . MIN XIA v THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE L. YOUNG et al For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes, visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Calendar: 4 The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. I estimate that I grant approximately 90+% of such motions for one simple reason: The responses at issue are not code-compliant. It is the goal of this article to educate both the Bar (as well as perhaps even the Bench) of the common mistakes and pitfalls concerning such formal responses, and moreover, to educate litigators as to how to ensure that their clients formal responses to RPDs are code-compliant., In order to approach this task, it is best to first understand the fundamental purpose of the formal response itself, as opposed to other collateral matters such as the actual production of the documents suffice it to state, they are not the same.