Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 20STCV34548, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 20STCV34548    Hearing Date: August 6, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Plaintiff Jake White (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendants Brianna Lynn Massie, Chris Kato, and Prey Films, LLC, on the grounds that he entered into Agreements with Defendants to produce a film whereby he would be entitled to a percentage of the proceeds, and that Defendant Massie intentionally made a false report to the police regarding a sexual encounter between herself, a female third party, and Plaintiff, resulting in Plaintiff being charged with a felony, which subsequently led to Defendants terminating Plaintiff’s position on the basis that the allegations violated the terms of their agreement. Plaintiff further alleges that at great personal expense, Plaintiff was able to provide sufficient evidence to the police and City Attorney’s Office that Defendant Massie’s allegations were false, and therefore, the City Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute for any violation originating from Defendant Massie’s allegations. Plaintiff claims that a warrant was issued for the arrest of Defendant Massie, for a violation of California Penal Code §148.5 – knowingly filing a false police report.

The first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges causes of action for: (1) malicious prosecution; (2) defamation; (3) intentional interference in a contractual relationship; (4) intentional interference in a prospective economic advantage; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) breach of contract; and (7) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Defendant Kato now brings an unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents and request for sanctions. The motion was not opposed despite a proof of service attached to the motion.

After review, and for the following reasons, the Court (1) GRANTS the motion, and (2) GRANTS the request for sanctions in a reduced amount.

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production (Set Two)

Legal Standard

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to a demand to produce.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (d); see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)  To establish this ground, a movant must show: (1) proper service, (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.040); and (2) expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service, (see Code Civ. Proc., §, 2031.260). 

A motion to compel initial responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210-2031.320; see also Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.) Neither is a separate statement required when no discovery response has been received.¿ (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (b).) However, a court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (See CBS, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; see also Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [scope of discovery, “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”].) 

Analysis:

Defendant Kato presents evidence that on May 12, 2023, he served a demand for production and inspection of documents and other things (set two) on Plaintiff. (Bartone Decl., ¶ 4; Exh. A.) The date for production was June 20, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiff asked for an extension to respond, which was granted. (Id., ¶ 5; Exh. B.) Defendant gave Plaintiff’s counsel until June 30, 2023 to respond. (Id., ¶ 6; Exh. C.) The responses were never sent. (Id., ¶ 8.) Defense counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email on April 30, 2024 asking for the documents, but did not receive a response. (Id., ¶¶ 10-11.)

As Defendant properly served the request for discovery, and Plaintiff has failed to provide responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to a court order directing Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery request served on Plaintiff.  Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Request for Sanctions: GRANTED

Legal Standard:

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted withs substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c); see Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 404.)  The 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, subd. (a).) 

Analysis:

Defendant requests $2,000 in sanctions (5.5 hours at $350 per hour, rounded up).

The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motion, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348 because Plaintiff has completely failed to respond to Requests for Production (Set Two). As such, the court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,050 ($350 per hour for 3 hours), to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Conclusion 

Defendant Kato’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is GRANTED because Defendant has shown (1) proper service of valid request for production requests, (2) nonresponse of the same, and (3) proper scope of discovery within these requests. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to request for production set two without objections within 30 days of this order.

Defendant Kato’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,050 pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348 for nonresponse to documents requests. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant Kato’s counsel $1,050 in sanctions within 30 days of this order.