Department 58

Hearing Date: October 14, 2024

Case Name: Haugabrook v. Ocran

Case No.: 23STCP02841

Motion: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production and Form Interrogatories

Moving Party: Plaintiff William C. Haugabrook

Responding Party: Defendant Samual Ocran (NO OPPOSITION FILED)

Tentative Ruling: Grant in entirety. No sanctions.

Background

This is a landlord-tenant action. Plaintiff William C. Haugabrook (“Plaintiff”) sued defendant Samual Ocran (“Defendant”) on August 7, 2023. Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action arising from his residential tenancy at a property owned or managed by Defendant.. Defendant filed his answer on September 27, 2023.

On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to his first set of requests for production of documents (“RFPs”). (Plaintiff also refers to form interrogatories in the caption of his motion, but he does not discuss them in his argument.)

Defendant filed no opposition. On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition.

Legal Standard

A party who receives a demand for production, i.e., a demand for inspection, copying, testing, etc. must respond separately to each individual item requested with either a statement indicating compliance, a statement that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210 (a).)

If the response is one of compliance, it must “state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Id., § 2031.220.)

If the response is one of an inability to comply, it “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.” (Id., § 2031.230.)

After receiving the response, the party who demanded production may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the party deems that any of the following apply:

(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.

(Id., §2031.310(a).)

Meeting and Conference

A party moving to compel further responses to discovery must meet and confer with its opponent prior to filing. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310(b)(2). 2016.040.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration establishes he did so. (See Cortina Decl., ¶ 6.)

Defendant’s Failures to Comply With the Civil Discovery Act

a. Assertion of waived objections

All of Defendant’s objections to discovery are overruled, because Defendant waived his objections when he first failed to timely respond.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration establishes Plaintiff propounded discovery on December 11, 2023 and “[d]espite multiple requests and extensions, Defendant did not serve timely responses …[,] nor did Defendant offer any justification for being untimely.” (Cortina Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

Failure to respond timely to discovery waives all objections unless the delinquent party moves the Court for relief from waiver (and the relief is granted). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) Counsel’s declaration establishes Defendant waived his objections. Defendant has not sought relief from waiver.

All of Defendant’s objections are overruled.

b. Failure to serve verified responses.

Defendant also did not verify his responses. An unverified response is legally inoperative. (See Steele v. Totah (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 545 [party must verify responses to requests for admission].) As a result, Defendant’s responses functionally contain no facts. They consist entirely of meritless objections.

c. Failure to affirm full compliance or state inability to comply.

Defendant’s responses also fail to comply with sections 2031.220 and 2031.230, which require that he affirm under oath either that his response is complete or, if it is incomplete, whether responsive documents exist, why they have not been produced and where they might be found. None of his responses do so.

Good Cause

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(1) requires a party moving to compel further responses to requests for production to demonstrate good cause for its opponent to produce the requested materials.

Plaintiff establishes good cause for his RFPs to be enforced. All of the requests in dispute relate directly to Plaintiff’s claims or various assertions Defendant has made in his own defense. (E.g., RFP 12 [documents “referring to any repairs attempted or made to the UNIT,” for habitability claims]; RFP No. 15 [documents “demonstrating that YOUR alleged housing arrangement with PLAINTIFF is based on ‘less formal requirements than usually required,’ ” for statutory claims].)

For each of the disputed RFPs, Plaintiff has established good cause why Defendant should be compelled to respond.

Individual Responses

To RFPs Nos. 15, 17, 19, and 21, Defendant did not respond at all. Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

To RFPs Nos. 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, and 20, Defendant stated he is “unaware” of responsive documents. This is insufficient. Not only must this response be verified under oath, it must confirm that a diligent search has been conducted, etc., as required by section 2031.230.

To RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 22, Defendant replied he is “unable to locate” responsive documents. This response is also deficient for failure to verify and failure to comply with section 2031.230. If Defendant knows of responsive documents – in his possession now, in his possession at some earlier time, or in the possession of someone else – he must explain why he cannot produce them. Being “unable to locate” them is not sufficient.

Defendant responded to RFP No. 24 only by producing the complaint from a different action. He did not verify the response under oath, nor did he confirm all documents in his possession have been produced, as required by section 2031.220 and/or 2031.230.

Defendant’s motion is granted in its entirety.

Sanctions

A party prevailing on a motion to compel further discovery responses is ordinarily entitled to monetary sanctions compensating it for “the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred … as a result of [the responding party’s] [mis]conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a); id., § 2031.310(h).)

Plaintiff seeks $5,000.00 in sanctions. Defendant has failed to show substantial justification for his discovery responses. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is granted.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion is granted in its entirety. Defendant is ordered to provide Code-Compliant responses on or before October 29, 2024. Defendant is ordered to pay $5,000 to Plaintiff’s counsel on or before November 12, 2024.