CCP 2031.230: When California Documents Cannot Be Produced

Legal content overseen by Nathan Walter, Esq., attorney licensed in California (State Bar No. 313299).

CCP 2031.230 governs what a California party must say when it cannot produce documents requested in discovery. An inability-to-comply response must affirm a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, explain the statutory reason the material cannot be produced, and identify any person or organization known or believed to hold it.

A bare “no responsive documents” does not supply those elements.

This guide is for defense teams responding to a California state-court request for production (RFP), a written demand to inspect and copy documents. “Inability to comply” means a party’s representation that it cannot produce an item or category.

What does CCP 2031.230 require in a California discovery response?

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230 requires a representation of inability to comply to affirm a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. It must also specify why compliance is impossible and give the name and address of any person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of the requested item or category.

The statute is one unnumbered paragraph with three parts (CCP § 2031.230). First, the response affirms that “a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made.” Second, it specifies whether the 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 responding party’s possession, custody, or control.

Third, it sets forth the name and address of any natural person or organization the party knows or believes has possession, custody, or control.

This representation is one of three ways to answer a demand. Under § 2031.210(a)(1)–(3), the responding party answers each item or category separately with a statement of compliance, a representation of inability to comply, or an objection. Under § 2031.210(c), each bears the same number and sequence as the demand (CCP § 2031.210). These make up discovery responses.

Quick reference: CCP 2031.230 inability response elements

Response element	What the statement addresses	Authority
Search and inquiry	Affirm both a diligent search and reasonable inquiry	CCP § 2031.230
Reason	Identify the actual listed reason for inability	CCP § 2031.230
Other holder	Name and address of anyone known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of the material	CCP § 2031.230
Verification	Party signs under oath; corporate officer or agent rule applies	CCP § 2031.250(a)–(b)

A compliance statement describes what will be produced. An inability representation explains why the item or category cannot be produced. An objection states the legal ground and extent of withholding. See §§ 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, and 2031.240. These categories can be combined for distinct portions of one request.

Can I respond “no responsive documents” to a California request for production?

A bare “no responsive documents” response omits elements required by California CCP § 2031.230. The response must address the search and inquiry, the reason for the inability to comply, and any known or believed holder, rather than leave the basis unstated.

The phrase is a conclusion that does not say whether the item never existed, was lost, or sits with someone else. Section 2031.310(a)(2) allows a motion to compel a further response when “a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” so a thin statement invites that motion (CCP § 2031.310(a)(2)).

An inability representation is a factual statement, so documents withheld on privilege grounds must never be described as nonexistent. Withheld material belongs in an objection stating its specific ground and extent under § 2031.240(b)(2). The discovery objections cheat sheet can help sort objections from factual representations.

Can I object to part of a California document request and say I cannot comply with the rest?

Yes. If only part of an item or category is objectionable, § 2031.240(a) requires the response to contain a statement of compliance or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder (CCP § 2031.240(a)).

The objection must identify the material with particularity and set forth its extent and specific ground under § 2031.240(b)(1)–(2).

What counts as a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in California?

California CCP § 2031.230 requires both a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry but does not prescribe a universal list of custodians, systems, or search terms. A useful defense-team workflow records what was searched, whom the team asked, and the factual basis for the response. That workflow is an editorial practice aid, not a statutory safe harbor.

A search looks through files and systems. An inquiry asks people who may know where records are or whether they ever existed. A keyword search that returns nothing does not by itself show a document was never created or is controlled by someone else. These four steps are one way to organize the work.

Step 1: Read the actual item or category

Start with the demand’s words, noting the time period, defined terms, and whether it seeks a specific document or a broad category. Section 2031.230 refers to “the particular demand.”

Step 2: Identify people and repositories

List the people at the corporate defendant who might have created or managed the material and where it might be kept, such as shared drives, email accounts, or a contract file. These are hypothetical examples, not a requirement to search every device. The guide to organizing discovery documents covers keeping those sources straight.

Step 3: Record the inquiry and results

Note what was searched, who was asked, and what each person said. Section 2031.230 does not expressly require a search log.

Step 4: Reconcile the facts with the representation

Compare the notes against the draft. If someone recalls the document, investigate that account before stating that it never existed. An empty search result from any tool, including an AI-assisted one, is not proof that a document never existed or that the party lacks control.

How do I respond if the requested documents never existed or were lost?

California CCP § 2031.230 requires the response to specify whether the requested item or category never existed, was destroyed, was lost, misplaced or stolen, or was never or is no longer in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control. “Never existed” and “not located” describe different factual situations and should not be used interchangeably.

The following examples are invented and illustrate response structure, not language ready for service.

Each example includes all three statutory components. Describing a loss does not decide any preservation or sanctions question, which this article does not address.

What if another company has the documents requested in California discovery?

California CCP § 2031.230 requires an inability representation to name and provide the address of any person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of the requested item or category. Another company’s physical possession does not by itself answer whether the responding party has control; § 2031.220 also addresses documents within the party’s possession, custody, or control.

Suppose a hypothetical defendant’s billing records are held by an outside records custodian. The statute asks the party to state that custodian’s name and address if it is known or believed to hold them (CCP § 2031.230). Whether the defendant nonetheless has “control” over those records is a separate question. A compliance statement under § 2031.220 covers documents “in the possession, custody, or control” of the party (CCP § 2031.220). Control for affiliates, vendors, insurers, or former employees is fact-specific and for the attorney to decide.

If the party does not know or believe anyone holds the item, the response should say so truthfully rather than supply a name or address it cannot support.

Does an inability-to-comply response need to be verified in California?

Yes. Under California CCP § 2031.250(a), the responding party signs the response under oath unless it contains only objections; a response containing an inability representation is not objections-only. For a corporate party, an officer or agent signs under § 2031.250(b), and counsel signs responses containing objections under § 2031.250(c).

If the corporation’s officer or agent who signs is an attorney acting in that capacity for the party, § 2031.250(b) provides that the party waives the lawyer-client privilege and work-product protection in later discovery from that attorney concerning the identity of the sources of the information in the response (CCP § 2031.250).

As a baseline, § 2031.260(a) provides that the response is due within 30 days after service of the demand, unless the court has shortened or extended the time on motion (CCP § 2031.260(a)). That is not a complete deadline calculator; the California Courts self-help page explains that periods depend on service (California Courts: responding to discovery).

Can AI help draft a California inability-to-comply discovery response?

Briefpoint drafts responses and objections to requests for production, with editable Microsoft Word output and attorney final review. Client Bridge collects client answers and document uploads for attorney review; those capabilities support preparation but do not establish the facts required for a California CCP § 2031.230 representation.

Briefpoint supports discovery response drafting for defense firms. Client Bridge sends clients plain-language questions through a secure link so they can answer and upload documents for attorney review. Autodoc finds responsive documents, adds page-level Bates citations, and builds a Bates-numbered production package.

Attorneys evaluate the factual basis, decide control, and review the response, and the officer or agent signs the verification.

Book a demo to see how Briefpoint supports your discovery response workflow.

See Briefpoint’s discovery response workflow:

FAQs about CCP 2031.230: What else should you know?

California CCP § 2031.230 governs what an inability-to-comply representation must say; neighboring provisions address objections and verification. These answers separate the statutory content requirements from optional documentation practices.

Is “no documents” a complete response under CCP 2031.230?

No. California CCP § 2031.230 requires more than a bare statement that there are no documents. The response must affirm a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, specify the reason for inability to comply, and identify any person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of the requested item or category.

Does CCP 2031.230 require a search log?

The text of California CCP § 2031.230 does not expressly require a search log. It requires the response to affirm a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and provide the other specified information. Recording sources searched and people consulted can help a team check its factual basis, but that suggested workflow is not a statutory checklist or safe harbor.

What if the requested document never existed?

California CCP § 2031.230 expressly lists “has never existed” as a reason for inability to comply. That statement must rest on the actual facts after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, not merely an unsuccessful keyword search. The response must also address any person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of the requested item or category.

Do I need a privilege log when I cannot produce documents?

An inability-to-comply representation alone does not trigger the privilege-log provision in California CCP § 2031.240(c)(1). That provision addresses objections based on privilege or protected work product and requires sufficient factual information to evaluate the claim, including a log if necessary. Distinguish documents withheld on a legal objection from documents that cannot be produced for a factual reason.

Who verifies a corporation’s inability-to-comply response?

An officer or agent signs under oath for a corporate responding party under California CCP § 2031.250(b). The objections-only exception in subsection (a) does not cover a response containing an inability representation. Counsel signs responses containing objections under subsection (c); counsel signing as the corporate agent also implicates the specific waiver provision in subsection (b).

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. This website contains links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser. Readers of this website should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website authors, contributors, contributing law firms, or committee members and their respective employers.