Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV09612, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09612    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: 74

Glenn Feldman, et al. v. Fraser Ross, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) from Defendant Kitross Apparel Los Angeles, LLC and Request for Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a contractual dispute.

            On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff Glenn Feldman (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Kitross Apparel Los Angeles, LLC (Defendant) and Fraser Ross. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, constructive trust, accounting, and fraudulent conversion.

            On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents (set two) (RFPs) on Defendant.

            On September 19, 2023, Defendant provided responses but never produced documents.

            On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to the RFPs.

            On January 5, 2024, Defendant served further responses to the RFPs, which rendered the motion moot.

            However, Plaintiff was dissatisfied with Defendant’s further responses.

            On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to the RFPs.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b), 2031.210, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff seeks further responses to RFP Nos. 96-98, 100-104, 106-112, 115, 118-120, 122, 123, 125, 127, and 128. As a preliminary matter, the court notes that Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant to no avail. That is, Plaintiff provides an email indicating that Defendant never responded to a meet and confer letter. (Kay Decl., ¶ 7; Ex. E, p. 1.) Defendant, for its part, has provided no evidence to the contrary. In addition, Plaintiff has good cause for the discovery sought: the documents at issue relate to financial documents, which Plaintiff needs to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

            Sanctions are warranted because Defendant has not demonstrated that it acted with substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, but the court finds the hours for which he seeks compensation excessive. (Kay Decl., ¶ 9.) Accordingly, the court will award Plaintiff’s counsel $3,000 ($375 x (3 hours (motion) + 3 hours (reviewing opposition and drafting reply) + 2 hours (preparing for and attending hearing)).

CONCLUSION

                The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production (set two). Defendant shall provide further, Code-compliant responses and produce responsive documents for RFP Nos. 96-98, 100-104, 106-112, 115, 118-120, 122, 123, 125, 127, and 128 within 30 days of this order. The court grants Plaintiff’s counsel’s requests for sanctions. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $3,000 within 30 days of this order.

                Plaintiff shall give notice.