MOTION TO COMPEL The motion is granted in part and denied in part, as follows Requests for Production, Nos. 2 and 3 The court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ assertion that that CCP §2031.230 limits responding party to stating a single reason for an inability to comply with a request fo production. However, the response must state that a diligent search and inquiry has been mad and must explain the inability to comply. Defendant’s statement that the requested voicemail either never existed, or to the extent they existed they were deleted “consistent with the ordinar course and regular practice of deleting voicemails following their receipt and review”, provide an explanation for the inability to comply, regardless of the fact that it provides two alternativ reasons. However, Defendants’ statement that the requested voicemails, to the extent the existed, were deleted “consistent with the ordinary course and regular practice of deletin voicemails ”, and that they “cannot be reasonably a