Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 21STCV24542 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV24542, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24542 Hearing Date: March 29, 2023 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. vs. Delta Fire Equipment, Inc., et. al., Case No. 21STCV24542

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant Delta Fire Equipment Inc.’s (Defendant) further responses to the Request for Production of Documents (Set Two). The motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses within ten (10) days of today’s date. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $4,56. Sanctions are payable to Plaintiff’s counsel and must be paid within thirty (30) days of today’s date.

A party may move for an order compelling further response to a request for production of documents if the demanding party deems that responses are incomplete, evasive, or contain meritless objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) A motion to compel further responses to an inspection demand “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff served the Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) on Defendant, consisting of Request Nos. 20 through 64. (Jun Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) The Requests seek documents concerning Defendant’s relationships with its independent contractors, including bids, quotes, work orders, contracts, and communications. (Ibid.) Defendant served untimely responses on April 25, 2022, producing documents in response to Nos. 24, 27, 33, 46, 42, 45, 51, 54, 60, and 63. Defendant’s responses also improperly asserted objections to each Request. (Jun Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3; Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Defendant served supplemental responses to the Requests on December 14, 2022. (Perez Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 3 [25].) The supplemental responses withdrew Defendant’s previously asserted objections, and produced further documents in response to Request Nos. 27, 36, 45, 54, and 63. For all other Requests, Defendant’s supplemental responses asserted that Defendant was unable to comply after conducting a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, and further stated:

There are no documents responsive to this request in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control. Responding Party believes this particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer in possession, custody, or control of the Responding Party. To the best of Responding Party’s belief there is no natural person or organization that has possession, custody or control of any item or category of item requested.

(Perez Decl., Ex. 3.)

Defendant served a second set of supplemental responses on March 15, 2023. (Perez Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 4 [56].) The second set changed Defendant’s statements of noncompliance to read, “After conducting a diligent search and making reasonable inquiry, it has been determined this Responding Party is unable to comply with this particular demand for inspection or production. There are no documents responsive to this request in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control.” (Ibid.)

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230, “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

Both sets of Defendant’s supplemental responses fail to “specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” Defendant’s first set of supplemental responses simply repeated the statutory text verbatim, without specifying which of the various, mutually exclusive reasons for non-compliance applied to each particular Request. Defendant’s second set of supplemental responses omitted any attempt to specify the reasons for Defendant’s inability to comply. Defendant must specify the reason for its inability to comply, and, where applicable, “set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) Accordingly, the Court finds the supplemental responses deficient and grants the motion to compel further responses.

“[T]he 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted based on Defendant’s unsuccessful opposition to this motion. In the Reply, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $7,310. The Court believes Plaintiff can only recover the amount requested in its notice of motion and motion and therefore awards $4,560.