Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: BC624312, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC624312    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Samira Saha sued Defendants Rickey L. Colley, Jr., and Does 1-20 pursuant to a Complaint alleging claims of (1) Fraud, (2) Negligent Misrepresentation, (3) Breach of Oral Contract, (4) Promissory Estoppel, (5) Conversion, (6) Battery, (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (8) Common Count – Money Lent, and (9) Common Count – Account Stated.

B. Default Judgment

On October 30, 2016, the Clerk filed an entry of default against Defendant Colley, Jr., as requested by Plaintiff Saha.

On December 23, 2016, in relation to a hearing regarding default judgment set for January 26, 2017, the Court granted default judgment against Defendant Colley, Jr.

On June 16, 2017, the Court signed judgment in this action.

That same day, the Clerk served notice of entry of judgment.

C. Motion Before the Court

On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff Saha served a first set of post-judgment demands for the identification and production of documents (RPDs, Set One) on Defendant Colley, Jr., via U.S. First Class Mail to Colley, Jr.’s Los Angeles, California, and Beverly Hills, California addresses.

On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff Saha filed a motion to compel initial discovery responses to RPDs, Set One, and for sanctions against Defendant Colley, Jr.

The motion was served on Defendant Colley, Jr., himself by service at his Beverly Hills, California address by overnight/express mail and by email service at Defendant Colley, Jr.’s Gmail email address.

No opposition appears in the record, nor does a reply or notice of non-opposition.

Plaintiff Saha’s motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion to Compel Responses to Production Requests and for Sanctions

A. Motion to Compel Initial Responses

1. Legal Standard

The provisions in California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 et seq. apply to the enforcement of requests for production served in a civil action by a judgment creditor on a judgment debtor and which seek information that will aid in the enforcement of the money judgment.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030, subd. (a).)

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).) To establish this ground, a movant must show:

(1) Proper service (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.040);

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subds. (a), (b)); and

(3) No timely response (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300).

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 Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; see also Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [scope of discovery].)

2. Analysis

Here, the Court finds sufficient grounds to grant Plaintiff Saha’s motion.

First, Plaintiff Saha presents evidence showing service of RPDs, Set One, on Defendant Colley, Jr. on November 21, 2023, via U.S. First Class Mail. (Mot., Jen Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit A.)

Second, Plaintiff Saha presents evidence that the deadline for responses or objections to RPDs, Set One, has expired, and that no responses or objections thereto were served by Defendant Colley, Jr. (Mot., Jen Decl., ¶¶ 1-7.)

Last, the Court determines that the production requests are within the scope of discovery because they relate to information that may lead to the discovery of evidence regarding Defendant Colley, Jr’s ability to pay the judgment against him in this action. (See Mot., Ex. A.)

Plaintiff Saha’s motion is thus GRANTED as to compelling initial responses to RPDs, Set One.

The Court notes that objections to RPDs, Set One, have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

B. Request for Sanctions

1. Legal Standard

The provisions in California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 et seq. apply to the enforcement of requests for production served in a civil action by a judgment creditor on a judgment debtor and which seek information that will aid in the enforcement of the money judgment.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030, subd. (a).)

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); see Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 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).)

2. Analysis

Here, the Court finds sufficient grounds to grant Plaintiff Saha’s motion for monetary sanctions.

First, a failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery, e.g., production requests, is a discovery abuse that can serve as a basis for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Second, here, the nonresponse described in Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration shows such a failure to respond to RPDs, Set One, an authorized method of discovery. (Mot., Jen Decl., ¶¶ 1-7; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.030, 2031.300.)

Third, Defendant Colley’s failure to oppose this motion does not undercut this Court’s ability to impose sanctions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Last, the Court determines that sanctions of $612.50 are reasonable, as comprised of a reasonable fee rate of $425 per hour, 1.3 hours spent preparing this motion, and a $60 motion filing fee. (Mot., Jen Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.)

Sanctions are thus GRANTED in the amount of $612.50. 

V. Conclusion

A. Production Requests

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Samira Saha’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Post-Judgment Demand for Identification and Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Defendant Rickey L. Colley, Jr. is ORDERED to produce documents, information, or explanations of non-availability in relation to RPDs, Set One, without objection (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a)), within 30 days of service of this ruling.

B. Sanctions

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Samira Saha’s Motion for Sanctions in the Sum of $612.50 is GRANTED.

Defendant Rickey L. Colley, Jr. is ORDERED to remit payment of $618.50 to Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Samira Saha within 30 days of service of notice of this ruling.