Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV30702, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30702    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    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 Westcoast Gate & Entry Systems (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Marco Antonio Erazo (“Plaintiff”) to produce documents identified in Plaintiff’s responses to Demands for Production of Documents. On April 21, 2023, Plaintiff served verified responses to document demands. (Ortiz Decl. ¶ 6.) No extensions were requested and documents have not been produced. (Ortiz Decl. ¶ 9-10.)

DISCUSSION

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection … thereafter fails to permit the inspection … in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an ordering compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party … or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(b).)

Here, no documents have been produced in conjunction with responses to document demands. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to compel production of documents.

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel. No opposition was filed and therefore Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he acted with substantial justification or that circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust. However, the Court finds the amount requested excessive in light of the nature of the motion and that it is unopposed. Accordingly, the Court orders sanctions in the amount of $430 (2 hours of attorney time at $185 plus $60 filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel and orders Plaintiff to produce responsive documents to Defendant within 15 days.

            Plaintiff and counsel for Plaintiff, jointly and severally, shall pay sanctions in the amount of $430 to counsel for Defendant within 15 days.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.