Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV26670, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26670    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

            Plaintiff states that on December 23, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant the Doorman Security, Inc. (Defendant). Defendant served responses on February 17, 2023, which were unsigned by defense counsel. Certain documents have not been produced. Although styled as a motion to compel responses to requests for production, the motion actually appears to be a request for an order to produce documents and for further responses.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motion to Compel Documents Responsive to Requests for Production

“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).)

DISCUSSION

            To the extent that the motion seeks to compel the production of documents that are referenced in the responses to Requests for Production of Documents (see Motion at pg. 5), the Court grants the motion to compel. However, Defendant appears to believe the issue is the lack of verified responses to Requests for Production of Documents. (See Opp. at pg. 3.) Plaintiff then replies that the responses are deficient. (Reply at pg. 2.) To the extent that the motion seeks verified responses, the motion appears to be moot. To the extent that the motion seeks to compel further responses, Plaintiff must timely schedule an Informal Discovery Conference, as required by the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures for the Personal Injury Hub.

            Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendant in the sum of $6,060. The Court finds the amount to be excessive and awards sanctions in the amount of $300.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and denies the motion to the extent that it seeks to compel further responses. Documents responsive to the Responses to Requests for Production of Documents shall be produced within 30 days.

Defendant is ordered to pay $300 to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days.

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