Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV44242, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44242    Hearing Date: December 12, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Shane Perel-Wertman’s Motion to Compel Response to First Set of Demands for Production

Plaintiff Shane Perel-Wertman moves to compel defendant Liza Perel to respond to his demands for production, inspection, and copying of documents, set one.  After plaintiff served and filed this motion, defendant served responses to the demands.  (Perel Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 3.)  The motion is therefore moot as to compelling responses.

Plaintiff also moved for $1,257.26 in monetary sanctions against defendant.  “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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”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(a).)

The court finds defendant acted with substantial justification and sanctions would not be just under the circumstances.  Defendant’s former counsel, David B. Felsenthal, submitted a declaration stating he mistakenly missed plaintiff’s email serving the demands for production and did not forward them to defendant.  (Felsenthal Decl., ¶¶ 2, 6.)  Defendant states she first learned about the document demands when plaintiff’s counsel served this motion on her.  (Perel Decl., ¶ 6.)  Under these circumstances, the court will exercise its discretion not to sanction defendant.

Disposition

Plaintiff Shane Perel-Wertman’s motion to compel response to demands for production is denied as moot.