Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV28634, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28634    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Rukli, Inc. sues Defendant City of Baldwin Park seeking declaratory judgment providing that (1) a settlement agreement between the parties is void and unenforceable due to the City’s nonperformance of contractual terms in the parties’ settlement agreement—e.g., the issuance of a cannabis cultivation and manufacturing license—for which reason the parties are returned to the positions they were in before their settlement agreement was executed and (2) Rukli does not owe the City any fees for cannabis cultivation and manufacturing licenses mandated by the parties’ settlement agreement in lieu of the City’s nonperformance. (See Complaint, pp. 1-6.)

On March 7, 2023, the City of Baldwin Park moved for a court order compelling Rukli’s responses to a Request for Production of Documents, Set Two served on Rukli by the City on January 26, 2023. (3/7/23 Compel Production Mot., 3:6-4:7.) The City also seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,900 against Rukli and its attorney, J. Scott Russo, jointly and severally, for misuse of the discovery process without substantial justification and for Rukli’s willful violation of the discovery statutes. (3/7/23 Compel Production Mot., 4:9-5:18.)

On March 16, 2023, Rukli served responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. (See 3/16/23 Non-Opposition to Compel Production Mot., Ex. 2; see also 3/16/23 Motion for Relief from Waiver, Ex. 2.)

Also on March 16, 2023, Rukli filed a motion for relief from waiver of objections to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, on the grounds that while Rukli failed to timely comply with this discovery request, the company has since, on March 16, 2023, served verified and substantially code-compliant responses thereto on the City of Baldwin Park. (3/16/23 Motion for Relief from Waiver, 4:3-5:4; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a) [A party who fails to timely respond to inspection demands waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4].)

On March 23, 2023, the City filed its Reply to Rukli’s Notice of non-Opposition.

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production: MOOT.

The Court’s review of Rukli’s March 16, 2023 responses to the City’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, shows the responses are substantially code compliant and thus MOOT the City of Baldwin Park’s motion to compel.

“Substantial compliance, as the phrase is used in the decisions, means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute.” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779 [citation omitted].) “Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance.” (Ibid.) “Substance prevails over form.” (Ibid.) “This formulation is unobjectionable so long as it is understood to mean that each objective or purpose of a statute must be achieved in order to satisfy the substantial compliance standard, but this language cannot properly be understood to require ‘actual compliance’ with every specific statutory requirement.” (Ibid.)

Rukli’s responses indicate whether document requests made by the City of Baldwin Park are, among other things, (1) moot because the documents requested have already been produced in prior discovery, (2) altogether objected to as vague, overbroad, or not within the scope of discovery, or (3) not capable of production because Rukli has no documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to the requests. (See, e.g., 3/16/23 Non-Opposition to Compel Production Mot., Ex. 2, RFP Nos. 38, 40, 41 [moot], 43, 46, 49 [vague, overbroad, outside scope of discovery], 73, 80, 82 [no control of requested documents].)

Because Rukli has provided substantially code-compliant responses to the City’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, the City of Baldwin Park’s March 7, 2023 motion to compel responses thereto is MOOT.

Request for Sanctions: DENIED.

The Court may award monetary sanctions against a party that fails to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, the Court DENIES the City of Baldwin Park’s request for sanctions, in the amount of $2,900, against both Rukli and its counsel J. Scott Russo jointly and severally, for failure to comply with an authorized method of discovery—i.e., Request for Production of Documents, Set Two—with fees calculated at $400 per hour, times 5.1 hours, plus $60 in costs related to the filing of this motion. (3/7/23 Compel Production Mot., 4:9-5:18 [requesting $2,900 in sanctions] & Sylva Decl., ¶¶ 9-11 [$60 for filing of motion, $1,240 for 3.1 hours worked on motion at a rate of $400 per hour, and additional $1,600 expected for four hours reviewing any opposition, formulating any reply, and making an appearance].)

The Court declines to issue sanctions because of circumstances that make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  Here, the responses were due on February 27, 2023. A meet and confer letter was sent on March 2, 2023, and the motion to compel was filed just 8 days after the responses were due, on March 7, 2023.  Substantially code compliant responses were served on March 16, 2023. Attorney Scott Russo sets forth in his declaration in support of his non-opposition to the motion to compel that the Requests for Production of Documents, Set 2, was not served on his secretary, unlike the other emails between him and the City’s counsel, which had been their prior protocol for service.  Moreover, Russo declares that he was in trial during this time.  While surely it was frustrating for the City not to receive the documents for 8 days after they were due, City’s counsel does not set forth why they had to move to compel so quickly, particularly given that trial was only set at a CMC on March 2, 2023 for a year into the future.  Given Rukli’s counsel’s prompt response as soon as he was able, the Court does not find it would just to impose sanctions in this case.

Conclusion

Defendant City of Baldwin Park’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is MOOT in light of Plaintiff Rukli, Inc.’s service of substantially code-compliant responses thereto on March 16, 2023.

Defendant City of Baldwin Park’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.