Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Lawrence v. Chang, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Stephanie Chang’s (“Chang”) unopposed Motions to Compel Compliance with and Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP), Sets One, from Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, Robert D. Lawrence (“Lawrence”) are GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a); 2031.310(a).)

On ROA 93, Lawrence failed to produce documents which were promised by the RFP responses. In response to all 40 of the document requests, he stated: “Responding Party will produce all DOCUMENTS responsive to this Request.” (See Declaration of Mark DelRosario (“MD Decl.”), Ex. D [ROA 93]; Separate Statement, ROA 89.) However, Chang has not received any documents responsive to these RFP despite multiple requests to Lawrence’s counsel. (MD Decl., ¶ 9.)

Given Lawrence’s failure to produce documents in accordance with his statement of compliance and his failure to oppose the motion, the motion at ROA 93 to compel compliance is GRANTED.

On ROA 97, the Court finds good cause is shown for the discovery sought as the requests appear generally tailored to the claims and defenses in this litigation. (See CCP §2031.310(b); FAC ¶¶ 6-23; Cross-Complaint ¶¶ 17-19, 21-33, 35-38.)

In response to RFP Nos. 3, 5–15, 21–24, 27 & 28, Lawrence stated: “Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this Request.” (ROA 97, Ex. D.) However, Lawrence has failed to produce any documents responsive to these RFP despite multiple requests to Lawrence’s counsel. (MD Decl., [ROA 97], ¶ 9.)

Lawrence also failed entirely to provide any responses to RFP Nos. 4, 19 and 20 and he responded with objections only to RFP Nos. 25 & 26. (See ROA 97, Ex. D.) His objections to RFP Nos. 25 and 26 are improper as all objections were waived due to his untimely service of responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).)

Accordingly, on ROA 97, the motion to compel compliance as to RFP Nos. 3, 5–15, 21–24, 27 & 28 is GRANTED. The motion to compel responses, without objections, and responsive documents to RFP Nos. 4, 19, 20, 25 and 26 is GRANTED.

Lawrence is ordered to serve verified further responses, without objections, and to produce responsive documents in accordance with this ruling, within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court finds sanctions are warranted against Lawrence and his counsel. Lawrence failed to oppose the motion and thus failed to offer any substantial justification for his failure to provide responsive documents. The Court imposes a reduced sanction of $945 per motion, for total sanctions of $1,890, against Lawrence and his counsel of record, MBA Legal, P.C., payable to Chang within 30 days of notice of this order. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310(h) & 2031.320(b).)

Moving party to give notice.