Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV41781, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41781    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            Defendant RREEF America REIT II Corp. BBB (Defendant), moves to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff Louis Richardson (Plaintiff) has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300, if a party fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Pro § 2031.300 (b).) The party who fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand unless the court finds that the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance or party’s failure was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (a)(1)- (2).)

Courts shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

DISCUSSION

            On January 31, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. (Wayne Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Extensions were granted until May 1, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5.) On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s then-counsel was relieved as counsel. (Min. Order, 7/19/23.) It does not appear Plaintiff has retained new counsel since then. According to the record, Plaintiff’s former counsel mailed Plaintiff notice that she was relieved on October 19, 2023. (See Notice of Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved, 10/24/23.) This motion was served on Plaintiff by mail. Defendant asserts that no responses have been served. (Id. ¶ 8.) Because no responses have been served, the motion to compel is granted.

Defendant does not seek monetary sanctions against Plaintiff at this time.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve complete and verified responses, without objection, to counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Defendant to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.