Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 20STCV30914, Date: 2023-02-07 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: 20STCV30914    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Manik Kharb’s Motion to Compel Responses to Post Judgment Request for Production of Documents to Pritpal Singh Bhatia

Plaintiff/judgment creditor Manik Kharb moves to compel defendant/judgment debtor Pritpal Singh Bhatia to respond to requests for production.  A judgment creditor may demand inspection of documents in the debtor’s possession, custody, or control “in the manner provided in” the Civil Discovery Act.  (CCP § 708.030(a).)

Order Compelling Responses

When a party fails to timely respond to requests for production, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses.  (CCP § 2031.300(b).)  Failing to timely respond waives any objections.  (CCP § 2031.300(a).) 

Judgment creditor served post-judgment requests for production of documents, set one on judgment debtor Pritpal Singh Bhatia and his counsel on November 1, 2022.  (Shirdel Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 3.)  Bhatia did not respond as of December 13, 2022, when Kharb filed this motion.  (Id., ¶ 10.)  Kharb is therefore entitled to an order compelling Bhatia to serve responses to post-judgment requests for production, set one.

Sanctions

Kharb moves for $2,494.52 in sanctions against Bhatia.  The Court of Appeal recently held that the Discovery Act’s “definitional statutes … do not authorize the court to impose sanctions in a particular case.”  (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 498.)  Instead, sanctions require an independent authorizing statute, such as those governing each discovery method.  (Ibid.) 

For a motion to compel responses to requests for production, the Discovery Act authorizes sanctions against someone “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” such a motion or someone who disobeys “an order compelling a response.”  (CCP § 2031.300(c).)  It does not, as Kharb argues, provide for sanctions in favor of a party “when he prevails on a motion to compel.”  (Motion, p. 6.)  These circumstances do not apply.  Bhatia did not oppose the motion.  He has not disobeyed an order compelling responses.  The court cannot impose monetary sanctions against him.  The court denies plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Disposition

            Plaintiff’s motion is granted.  Judgment debtor Pritpal Singh Bhatia is hereby ordered to serve verified responses without objections to post-judgment requests for production of documents, set one, within 30 days.