Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV01654, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV01654 Hearing Date: February 20, 2025 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 02/20/2025 – 8:30am
Case No. 23GDCV01654
Trial Date: 07/14/2025
Case Name: LEONARDA BEREJIKLIAN v. HOME GOODS, et al.
TENTATIVE
RULING – MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RELIEF
REQUESTED¿
Plaintiff,
Leonarda Berejiklan, moves for an order compelling further responses to Request
for Production of Documents from Defendant HomeGoods, Inc.
Pursuant to CCP §§ 2030-2034 et seq. and other related
CCP codes and statutory law, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against
Defendants and their counsel of record.
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s notice page does not
indicate the monetary value of the sanctions that Plaintiff seeks; however, the
caption of the motion indicates that Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of
$4,550.00.
Preliminary Procedural
Moving
Party: Plaintiff, Leonarda Berejiklan
Responding Party: Defendants, HomeGoods, Inc. (erroneously sued herein as Home
Goods) and The TJX Companies, Inc. (erroneously sued herein as TJX Companies)
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Yes/No –
See explanation in tentative ruling
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300(c)): Yes/No – See explanation
in tentative ruling
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok
Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement; Proposed
Order
Opposition Papers: Opposition
Reply Papers: Reply
BACKGROUND
[The
Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint spells Plaintiff’s name as Leonarda Berejiklian;
however, Plaintiff’s moving papers spell Plaintiff’s name as Leonarda
Berejiklan.]
Plaintiff, Leonarda Berejiklian, filed the instant
action on 8/4/2023 against Defendants – Home Goods, TJX Companies, Teaunna
Webb, and Does 1-25.
This action stems from allegations that Plaintiff was
looking at dishware at Home Goods and slipped and fell on a serving platter.
(See Compl. ¶ 4.)
On 1/17/2024, Defendants – HomeGoods, Inc.
(erroneously sued herein as Home Goods) and The TJX Companies, Inc.
(erroneously sued herein as TJX Companies) – filed an Answer.
On 2/1/2024, Defendant, Teaunna Webb, was dismissed
without prejudice.
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION
Under
CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that
“[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery
or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of
the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable
matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition
and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible
thing, or land or other property.”
CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection
may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the
demanding party deems that:
“(1) A statement of
compliance with the demand is incomplete.
(2) A representation of inability to comply is
inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3) An objection in the response is without
merit or too general.”
(CCP
§ 2031.310(a).)
“In the more specific context of a
demand for production of a tangible thing, the party who asks the trial court
to compel production must show “good cause” for the request—but unless there is
a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is
met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services
Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS
45-Day Requirement
Unless
notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified
response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific
later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in
writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to
the demand. (CCP § 2031.310(c).)
Here, Plaintiff’s motion is timely.
Meet and Confer
“The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(2).)
Here, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred.
//
TENTATIVE
RULING
Service
“Unless
otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting
papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.”
(CCP § 1005(b).)
“Proof of
service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before
the time appointed for the hearing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c).)
“Any motion
involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request
must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a
separate statement include a motion: (3) To compel further responses to a
demand for inspection of documents or tangible things[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 3.1345(a)(3).)
For
Plaintiff’s hearing, Plaintiff filed three sets of moving papers – the motion
itself, a separate statement, and a proposed order.
Here, the
motion contained a proof of service; however, the separate statement and
proposed order did not contain a proof of service. Therefore, not only is it
not clear if the separate statement and proposed order were timely, but it is
also not clear if the separate statement and proposed order were served on
Defendant.
The Court
notes that Defendant’s Opposition did not bring up the service issues that the
Court pointed out.
Untimely
Opposition
The Reply accurately points out that
Defendant’s Opposition was untimely. Although the opposition was untimely, the
Court will utilize its discretion and still consider the untimely opposition.
Overall
Plaintiff’s motion concerns
compelling further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two,
numbers 1, 2, and 3.
On December
23, 2024, Defendant, HomeGoods, Inc. provided responses to Plaintiff’s Requests
for Production of Documents, Set Two.
Plaintiff
filed the instant motion on 1/23/2025.
In
opposition, Defendant argues that the instant motion should be denied as moot
because on 2/6/2025, Defendant provided further verified responses. Defendant argues how the further verified
responses are code-compliant.
In reply,
Plaintiff argues that this motion should not be denied as moot because the
further, verified responses provided on 2/6/2025 are not code-compliant.
Here, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for
Production of Documents, Set Two, numbers 1, 2, and 3 is DENIED as moot;
however, the issue of sanctions is not denied as moot.
Although
Plaintiff’s Reply argues that the further responses that Defendant provided
after the filling of Plaintiff’s motion are not code-compliant, Plaintiff did
not put the further responses (served on February 6, 2025) at issue when
Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Plaintiff’s motion moved to compel further
responses based on the initial responses provided on December 23, 2024, not the
supplemental responses that were provided on February 6, 2025 after the filing
of Plaintiff’s motion.
If Plaintiff
has an issue with the further responses that Defendant provided on February 6,
2025, it is Plaintiff’s duty to follow the CCP, California Rules of Court, and
all applicable code sections and law in order to file a motion to compel
further responses. While Plaintiff’s Reply attacks the February 6, 2025 further
responses, it is not entirely clear what Plaintiff’s precise issues are with
each further response, as Plaintiff does not have a separate statement for the
further responses provided on February 6, 2025. If Plaintiff files another
motion to compel further responses based on the February 6, 2025 responses, the
Court would be able to see Plaintiff’s precise arguments for each supplemental
response by Plaintiff filing a separate statement based on the February 6, 2025
responses.
IDC
Defendant’s Opposition states that
Plaintiff filed the subject motion without scheduling an IDC with this Court as
required by this Court’s Rules for Department E. Defendant argues that the
motion should be denied on this basis.
In Reply,
Plaintiff states an IDC statement was filed on February 11, 2025. Plaintiff’s
Reply acknowledges the late filing of the IDC. Plaintiff argues that this
motion should not be denied on grounds of the IDC because Plaintiff argues the
parties have extensively met and conferred and the parties cannot reach a
resolution.
Here, the
Court does not find it appropriate to deny Plaintiff’s motion on grounds that
the IDC was not scheduled. IDC’s are not
mandated by this Court prior to filing a discovery motion, they are simply
suggested.
Plaintiff
followed the meet-and-confer requirement of CCP § 2031.310(b)(2) before filing
the instant motion. Defendant did not provide further responses until after
Plaintiff filed the instant motion.
Sanctions
As to
sanctions, Plaintiff seeks $4,550.00 in sanctions against Defendant and its
counsel of record.
Plaintiff’s
counsel bases the sanctions request on the following:
Defendant's
conduct has necessitated this motion. I prepared this motion. My hourly rate
for matters such as this one is $350 per hour. Preparing this motion caused
plaintiff to incur $4,550 in attorney fees. I spent two (2) hours in my meet
and confer efforts. I spent three (3) hours preparing the separate statement in
support of this motion. I spent two (2) hours drafting this motion. I will be
required to spend at least an additional two (2) hours reviewing any
oppositions and preparing a reply thereto. I will spend at least an additional
two (2) hours in attending and preparing statements for the IDCs. I anticipate
spending an additional two (2) hours preparing a reply, preparing for the
hearing and participating in the hearing of this motion. Accordingly, the total
of this amount is $4,550 of attorney fees incurred by plaintiff in bringing
this motion.
(Borisov
Decl. ¶ 17.)
Defendant
argues that sanctions should be denied because it responded to the at-issue
requests and because it requested several times that the motion be taken off
calendar. Defendant also argues that sanctions are not appropriate because
Plaintiff did not schedule an IDC before filing the instant motions.
Except as provided in subdivision
(j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand,
unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
unjust. (CCP § 2031.310(h).)
“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).)
Here, the
Court will hear argument. The Court is likely to grant at least some sanctions,
as Defendant did not provide further responses until after Plaintiff filed the
instant motion.