Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV35740, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35740    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Manuk Pashanyan’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set One and for Sanctions Against Plaintiff and His Counsel.

PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (“Defendant”) moves to compel MANUK PASHANYAN (“Plaintiff”) to provide complete responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, and for $1,410.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel. Defendant served Plaintiff with the document requests on 5/16/2023. (Maddock Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff did not serve responses timely, and still did not serve responses even after Plaintiff provided Defendant an extension to serve objection-free responses in July 2023. (Id., ¶ 7.)

On 1/24/2024 – eight months after receiving the document requests and in response to the upcoming hearing on this motion, Plaintiff served verified responses to the document requests. (Der-Tatevossian Decl., Ex. 1.) There is no indication that Plaintiff served documents along with the responses.

Where respondents serve untimely discovery responses after parties have filed motions to compel initial responses, courts have broad discretion as to ruling, including: 1) denying the motion as moot, in whole or part, where valid responses without objections have resolved the motion;  2) awarding requested sanctions;  3) allowing moving party to take the motion off calendar;  4)  considering the motion as voluntarily narrowed in scope;  5) compelling responses without objection, where no legally valid responses have been provided, as to some, or all, requests; 6) treating the motion as one to compel further responses, and ruling accordingly, with, or without, a separate statement; 7) ordering the parties to meet and confer;  8)  ordering moving party to file a separate statement; or, 9) ordering the motion off calendar while requiring the propounding party to file a motion to compel further responses.  Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., v. Klugman (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.

The Court exercises its discretion to treat the motion as one to compel further responses and to grant such motion. Plaintiff’s responses to the document requests are deficient and do not substantially comply with CCP §§ 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, and 2031.240. They include objections to document requests even though Plaintiff waived any objections to the requests when he missed the deadline to timely serve responses. Other responses state an inability to comply but do not explain whether the inability to comply is because the item has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in Plaintiffs’ possession custody or control. For example, many responses say the requested documents do not exist “at this time,” begging the question of whether they have never existed, or they did exist but have since been lost, misplaced, or stolen. And other responses state that Plaintiff will comply but does not specify if Plaintiff will comply in whole or in part, and that all documents in Plaintiff’s custody, possession, or control will be included in the production. As noted above, Plaintiff did not provide evidence that he has produced any documents to go along with the responses.

The Court finds no substantial justification for Plaintiff’s late and woefully deficient responses. Indeed, Plaintiff does not even acknowledge the tardiness of his responses, let alone attempt to justify his conduct.

For these reasons, the Court grants the motion and request for sanctions. On or before 2/21/2024, Plaintiff shall serve further written responses, and produce documents, without objections, and in full compliance with the CCP, to Defendant’s first set of document requests.

On or before that same date, Plaintiff and/or his counsel shall pay discovery sanctions in the sum of $1,410.00 to Defendant.