Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21GDCV01002, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21GDCV01002 Hearing Date: August 10, 2022 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT 3
DIANNA MENG vs. NANCY LIU | Case No.: | 21GDCV01002 |
Hearing Date: | August 10, 2022 | |
Time: | ||
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFF DIANNA MENG’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT NANCY LIU’S RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,985 AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD SULLIVAN, WORKMAN & DEE, LLC, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY
| ||
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Dianna Meng
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Nancy Liu
Plaintiff Dianna Meng’s Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant Nancy Liu’s Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents; Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,985 Against Defendant and Her Counsel of Record Sullivan, Workman & Dee, LLC, Jointly and Severally
The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply filed in connection with this motion.
///
///
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Dianna Meng filed this action against Defendant Nancy Liu on August 3, 2021.
On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One to Defendant. (Khalili Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) By May 18, 2022, Defendant had not provided responses to the requests. (Khalili Decl., ¶ 4.) Counsel for the parties met and conferred about the discovery and could not agree on a new deadline for the responses. (Khalili Decl., ¶¶ 4-9.)
Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses without objections to the Requests for Production of Documents and also requests monetary sanctions.
LEGAL STANDARD
If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)
If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
In connection with filing her Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant served her responses along with her document production. (Cummings Decl., ¶ 6; see also Khalili Reply Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Defendant contends that monetary sanctions are not warranted because Plaintiff never confirmed the appropriate electronic service address by telephone or email, leading to the late responses and production. (Cummings Decl., ¶ 3.) Confirmation is required to effectuate electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (e)(1) [“Before first serving a represented party electronically, the serving party shall confirm by telephone or email the appropriate electronic service address for counsel being served.”].) Plaintiff argues that the discovery requests were sent to the email address of Defendant’s counsel of record, which is the same email address provided to the court for e-filing. (Khalili Decl., ¶ 2.) Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Plaintiff complied with the confirmation requirement of section 1010.6. Plaintiff’s assuming an e-filing email address is the correct address for service is not the same, however, as complying with section 1010.6, which requires that Plaintiff confirm either by an email or phone call to Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff was using the appropriate email address for service. Because Defendant has served responses and documents the court finds the motion to compel is moot, and the circumstances involving service of the request for production make sanctions unjust.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Colin Leis
Judge of the Superior Court