Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV25609, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25609    Hearing Date: April 26, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

The complaint in this case alleges violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, fraud and deceit, and related claims arising from the purchase of an automobile with an undisclosed markup. On November 30, 2023, Defendant JLR Los Angeles LLC (JLR) served Requests for Production of Documents (RPDs), Set One, on Plaintiffs Powerhouse Enterprise Ltd. (Powerhouse) and Gili Cohen. Responses were due around January 2, 2024.

On January 5, 2024, JLR’s counsel emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel seeking responses to RPDs, Set One, from each Plaintiff by January 15, 2024. Plaintiffs’ counsel represents that counsel missed this email based on a technical issue.

On January 22, 2024, based on Plaintiffs’ and counsel’s nonresponse, JLR filed motions to compel initial production to RPDs, Set One, from Plaintiffs Powerhouse and Cohen respectively. The motions also request monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record.

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiffs Powerhouse and Cohen filed their respective oppositions to JLR’s motions. Both oppositions attach a declaration from counsel indicating that counsel inadvertently did not respond to the meet and confer efforts and that Plaintiffs served responses to RPDs, Set One, on January 31, 2024, with supplemental responses served on March 19, 2024. The oppositions attach Plaintiffs’ ‘supplemental’ responses.

On April 18, 2024, JLR replied to Plaintiffs Powerhouse’s and Cohen’s oppositions. JLR’s replies do not address the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ responses to RPDs, Set One, instead briefly noting that unverified responses were served on January 31, 2024, and were later verified on March 19, 2024. The replies instead primarily limit themselves to arguing in favor of monetary sanctions.

JLR’s motions are now before the Court.

II. Motion to Compel Initial Production and Requests for Sanctions

A. Note – Same Analysis Based on Identical Papers Filed in Relation Plaintiffs

The Court notes that the moving papers, the opposition papers, and the reply papers, including the declarations from counsel, facts related to production, and exhibits related to meet and confer, are essentially identical as between Plaintiff Powerhouse and Plaintiff Cohen, only changing, for example, the name of the Plaintiff at issue.

As such, the Court proceeds with a single analysis as to both motions.

B. Motions to Compel Production: MOOT.

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiffs served what the reply characterizes as unverified responses to RPDs, Set One, with verification following on March 19, 2024. (Reply, p. 2; see Opp’ns, Margarian Decls., ¶¶ 8; Opp’ns, Exs. 2 [responses with March 19, 2024, verification, and no proofs of service].)

JLR’s reply does not dispute service of these responses, nor does JLR contest their sufficiency. JLR thus does not oppose the concept that its motions were mooted as to initial production in relation to RPDs, Set One.

JLR’s motions are thus MOOT as to compelling initial production to RPDs, Set One, from Plaintiffs Powerhouse and Cohen.

C. Requests for Sanctions: DENIED.

1. 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 with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

2. Court’s Determination

Here, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration explains that the failure to respond to JLR’s meet and confer effort was a result of inadvertence—a “technical issue”—and that Plaintiffs complied with their discovery obligations by serving responses to RPDs, Set One, on January 31, 2024, nine days after JLR filed the motions before the Court, later ‘supplementing’ those responses on March 19, 2024. (Opp’ns, Margarian Decls., ¶¶ 4-8.) Under these circumstances—and even if the responses were first served unverified on January 31, 2024, and later verified on March 19, 2024—the Court agrees with Plaintiffs when they argue that they course-corrected in good faith, serving responses to RPDs, Set One, as of March 19, 2024, at the latest.

JLR’s reply does not advance arguments convincing the Court to find to the contrary. Both replies primarily focus on relating the procedural history for RPDs, Set One. The substantive argument for monetary sanctions is brief and states: “Because it is patently clear that Plaintiff and his attorney would have never served verified responses to this discovery if Defendant had not filed this motion, the Court should impose sanctions … to reimburse Defendant for the fees and costs it incurred in pursuing the motion.” (Replies, pp. 2.) The Court disagrees with this argument. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, the Court finds it more reasonable to interpret Plaintiffs’ and counsel’s conduct as delay based on some kind of mistake or inadvertence, with Plaintiffs showing good faith in serving responses to RPDs, Set One, a mere nine days after JLR filed its motions. Even if those responses were unverified—thus not constituting any responses at all until verification on March 19, 2024—the substance of Plaintiffs’ responses was clear as of January 31, 2024. Plaintiffs are admonished for not serving verifications more quickly after January 31, 2024, instead delaying until March 19, 2024, to do so. However, again, in the whole, Plaintiffs have, if belatedly, satisfied their obligations under the Discovery Act.

Based on the above, the Court determines that sanctions here would be unjust.

JLR’s requests for monetary sanctions are thus DENIED. 

III. Conclusion

A. RPDs, Set One, Gili Cohen

Defendant JLR Los Angeles LLC’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Gili Cohen to Provide Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for $2,356.65 in Monetary Sanctions [CRS# 9791] is:

(1) MOOT as to compelling initial production responses in relation to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, from Plaintiff Gili Cohen.

(2) DENIED as to monetary sanctions.

B. RPDs, Set One, Powerhouse Enterprise Ltd.

Defendant JLR Los Angeles LLC’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Powerhouse Enterprise Ltd. to Provide Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for $2,271.65 in Monetary Sanctions [CRS# 9791] is:

(1) MOOT as to compelling initial production responses in relation to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, from Plaintiff Powerhouse Enterprise Ltd.

(2) DENIED as to monetary sanctions.