Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV28075, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28075    Hearing Date: December 14, 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 Bryan Medrano (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant 123 Ramona LLC (Defendant) to serve responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three. Defendant responds that counsel missed the discovery request and will provide responses within 15 days and pay a monetary sanction. Plaintiff did not respond to counsel’s offer and has confirmed that the motions will remain on calendar.

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

Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three on Defendant on July 7, 2023. (Jensen Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) No responses have been served. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to compel.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,060 (3 hours of attorney time at $400 plus the filing fee). The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted, but finds the amount to be excessive in light of the type of motion at issue and the lack of an opposition. Therefore, the Court grants sanctions in the amount of $460 (1 hour of attorney time plus the filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Set Three is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide verified responses, without objection, within 15 days.

Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $460 to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days.

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