Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV15500, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15500    Hearing Date: January 26, 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 City of Palos Verdes Estates (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Veronica Alexandre (“Plaintiff”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes and seeks monetary sanctions.

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

Here, Defendant served Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three, on Plaintiff on October 25, 2023. (Farahani Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff served a verified response that included objections and responses. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. D.)  Because Plaintiff served a verified response, a motion to compel responses under section 2031.300 is improper.[1] Instead, a motion to compel further responses is the proper motion where a party argues that responses are insufficient. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310.) Any party making a motion to compel further must follow the procedures set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, California Rules of Court, and the Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order.

To the extent the motion seeks to compel production of the documents agreed to be produced in the verified responses, Plaintiff has stated that such materials will be produced. Such production must occur within 30 days. If any disputes remain, as indicated above, a motion to compel further is the proper motion.

In light of the above, the Court declines to award sanctions to either party.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three is DENIED.

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