Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV09557, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV09557 Hearing Date: February 27, 2025 Dept: 52
Plaintiff Tyneisha Kenyetta Stewart moves to
compel defendant Jose Del Rio and defendant Rosalinda Del Rio each to serve
further responses to form interrogatories – general Nos. 3.1, 3.6(b), and 17.1,
special interrogatories Nos. 10, 19, and 21, and requests for production of
documents Nos. 1-9, 12-14, 18-20, 25, 26, and 30.
After plaintiff filed the motions, the
parties met and conferred and resolved part of this dispute. (Douglas Decls., ¶¶ 13-15, Exs. I & J; Supp.
Farahi Decl., ¶¶ 6-8, Ex. G.)
In her
reply brief, plaintiff asserts defendants have not yet produced all responsive
documents or served verifications of their supplemental responses. If defendants failed to produce responsive
documents despite agreeing to do so, plaintiff must “move for an order
compelling compliance” with defendants’ “statement of compliance” under Code of
Civil Procedure section 2031.320(a) rather than moving to compel further
responses under section 2031.310. (See Standon
Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903 [under former
discovery statutes, discussing the distinction between moving to compel further
response and moving to compel compliance or production].) As to verifications of the supplemental
responses, the court will order defendants to serve their verifications.
Sanctions
Plaintiff
moves for monetary sanctions against each defendant and their counsel. Defendants acted with substantial
justification. Sanctions are not
warranted under the circumstances. Based
on this record, the court finds defendants made a significant effort to provide
code-compliant discovery responses. Many
of defendants’ initial responses included substantive answers, some of which were
adequate before supplementing. And in
response to several requests for production, defendants agreed to produce all
non-privileged documents in their possession, custody, or control. Finally, shortly after plaintiff filed these
motions, defendants agreed to supplement their responses and produce additional
documents.
Defendants argue
plaintiff should be sanctioned for failing to make an adequate effort to meet
and confer before filing her motions. Code
of Civil Procedure section 2023.020 provides, “Notwithstanding the outcome of
the particular discovery motion, the court shall impose a monetary sanction
ordering that any party or attorney who fails to confer as required pay the
reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result
of that conduct.”
It is
likely that the parties would have resolved some of their disputes if plaintiff
had tried to meet and confer earlier than December 9, 2024. (Farahi Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. E.) But after that letter, counsel for the parties
exchanged multiple emails trying to schedule a phone call. (Douglas Decls., ¶¶ 5-12, Exs. B-H.) They ultimately did not discuss the substance
of these discovery responses before plaintiff filed these motions on the
evening of December 17. The court does
not find plaintiff is solely to blame for the parties’ difficulty speaking
before plaintiff filed the motions.
Moreover,
when considering the looming deadline to file these motions within 45 days of
defendants’ responses, plaintiff made an adequate effort to meet and confer. Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter stated, “If
Defendant needs more time to supplement the discovery responses, our office is
willing to grant an extension provided we get a reciprocal extension to file a
motion to compel further responses.” (Farahi Decl., Ex. E.) None of defendants’ correspondence included
an agreement to extend plaintiff’s deadline to move to compel further
responses. In these circumstances,
plaintiff’s effort was sufficient.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Tyneisha Kenyetta Stewart’s
motion to compel defendant Jose Del Rio to serve further responses to form
interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of
documents is granted in part. Defendant Jose Del Rio is ordered to serve the verification of his supplemental
discovery responses within 15 days.
Plaintiff
Tyneisha Kenyetta Stewart’s
motion to compel defendant Rosalinda Del Rio to serve further responses to form
interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of
documents is granted in part. Defendant Rosalinda Del Rio is ordered to serve the verification of her supplemental
discovery responses within 15 days.