Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 23STCV09253, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV09253, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09253 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion To Compel Production of Documents Without Objections.

DANIEL POWTER and KDS FARRELL, INC. (“Plaintiffs”) bring this case against Defendants ANTONIO SALEM and SALEM AND ASSOCIATES, LLP (“Defendants”) related to Defendants’ alleged mismanagement of Plaintiff Powter’s finances.

Plaintiff Powter moves to compel Defendant Salem’s initial responses to a request for documents, set one, and requests $3,637.50 as sanctions. Defendant Salem did not file an opposition, though his attorney filed a declaration in opposition to the motion.

A motion to compel initial discovery responses need only show that discovery was properly served on the opposing party, the time to respond expired, and no response was served. Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300 (compelling initial document requests). A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 404. Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice. E.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4^th 1542, 1557-58. “‘[S]ubstantial justification’ has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434. “If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’” Ibid., at p. 1435.

Plaintiff Powter sufficiently showed that Defendant Salem served no response to the properly served request for production, set one. Indeed, the declaration from Defendant Salem’s counsel does not dispute that Defendant Salem has failed to serve verified, written responses to the document requests and produce responsive documents in Defendant Salem’s possession, custody, or control. The Court imposes sanctions because Defendant Salem presents no substantial justification for his repeated, months-long failure to serve responses to the document requests.

Thus, the Court grants the motion to compel responses and the request for sanctions.

On or before 4/24/24, Defendant ANTONIO SALEM shall serve initial responses, and produce documents, without objections, and in full compliance with the California Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc. §2016.010 et seq.), as to the request for documents, set one, served by Plaintiffs DANIEL POWTER and KDS FARRELL, INC. By that same date, Defendant Salem shall pay Plaintiff Powter sanctions in the amount of $3,637.50.