Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case Number: 23STCP03686, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCP03686, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP03686 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

JF Capital Advisors, LLC vs. 1541 Thompson Holdings LLC, et. al., Case No. 23STCP03686

Tentative Ruling re: Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Petitioner requests an order compelling 1541 Thompson Holdings LLC (Respondent) to provide further responses to JF Capital Advisors, LLC’s (Petitioner) Request for Production of Documents, Set One, requests 1–5, 9, 13, 14, 18–27, 33, 34, 37, and 38. The motion is granted, and Respondent is ordered to produce documents and code compliant verified responses within ten (10) days of today’s date.

Petitioner also requests monetary sanctions against Respondent in the amount of $1,773 pursuant to sections 2023.010 and 2031.300, subdivision (c). Respondent is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,773 to Petitioner’s counsel 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.” (Id., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586–588.)

“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.)

Request for Production of Documents, Set One, requests 1–5, 9, 13, 14, 18–27, 33, 34, 37, and 38.

Respondent’s responses to Petitioner’s discovery request were due 30 days after the production request was served on June 6, 2024. (Bosko Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) On July 9, 2024, Respondent provided only objections to Petitioner’s request for production. (Id., ¶ 3, Ex 2.) This response was both late and deficient. Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s request to compel further responses on the grounds that Respondent filed a late and incomplete response to Petitioner’s discovery request. Petitioner has demonstrated good cause exists for its requests because the documents are relevant to Respondent’s financial solvency and ability to pay an arbitration award. Respondent does not argue any objections in its opposition.

Respondent argues that the current motion is unnecessary because Respondent offered to supplement its responses. Respondent has produced no evidence attesting to this. Petitioner alleges that no responses have been provided. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is granted.

Monetary Sanctions

“[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 a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Here, Petitioner calculates that “the total reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred for the three concurrently served motions is at least $5,320, or $1,773.33 per motion.” (Bosko Decl., ¶ 11.) Accordingly, the Court awards Petitioner $1,773.33 in connection with this motion.