Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 20STCV26552, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 20STCV26552    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 52

Defendant Wilshire Fremont Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production      

A.        Defendant’s Request for an Order Compelling Plaintiff Provide a Further                             Written Response (Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310)

Defendant Wilshire Fremont Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc. (Wilshire Fremont) moves to compel plaintiff Florence Fleming, aka Bo Fleming to serve further responses to requests for production, set one, Nos. 1-26.  A party propounding requests for production may move to compel further responses if “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.”  (CCP § 2031.310(a)(1).) 

To each request, plaintiff responded, “Responding Party will produce all responsive documents.”  Defendant argues that response is insufficient because “it does not specifically identify the responsive documents” as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a).  This argument conflates a responding party’s obligations to (a) provide the written response to a request for production and (b) actually produce the documents produced in compliance with that response.

The written response itself need not identify the documents being produced.  The Civil Discovery Act includes, verbatim, the text required for a statement of compliance: Plaintiff’s responses included incomplete statements of compliance.  “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production … will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”  (CCP § 2031.220.)  Wilshire Fremont does not contend that plaintiff’s response fails to comply with this requirement.

B.        Defendant’s Request that Plaintiff Produce Documents in Compliance With                         Her Written Response (Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.320)

The requirement to identify the documents produced “with the specific request number to which the documents respond” (CCP § 2031.280(a)) applies when producing documents in compliance with a demand.  Defendant states that, despite plaintiff’s statement of compliance, she has not produced any documents.  (Curran Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.)  That constitutes a failure to permit the inspection “in accordance with [plaintiff’s] statement of compliance.”  (CCP § 2031.320(a).)  Defendant therefore is entitled to an order compelling compliance.

C.        Sanctions

Defendant Wilshire Fremont moves for $4,057.50 in sanctions against plaintiff.  The court cannot impose sanctions under these circumstances.  The recent case City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 598-502 held that imposing sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act requires an independent authorizing statute, such as those governing each discovery method. 

The relevant authorizing statutes are Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310(h) and 2031.320(b), both of which permit monetary sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel” further responses to a demand or compliance with a demand.  Plaintiff did not oppose this motion.  No statute independently authorizes sanctions against plaintiff.

D.        Disposition

            Defendant Wilshire Fremont Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc.’s motion is denied as to sanctions and as to compelling further written responses to requests for production.

Defendant Wilshire Fremont Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc.’s  motion is granted as to an order compelling production of documents.  Plaintiff Florence Fleming, aka Bo Fleming, is ordered to produce documents in compliance with her statements of compliance to requests for production, set one, Nos. 1-26, within 20 days.  The documents produced “shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.”  (CCP § 2031.280(a).)