Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCP03025, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP03025    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: 86

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

Date:               2/13/25 (1:30 PM)

Case:                           Brian Pressman v. Palos Verdes Homes Association (24STCP03025)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Brian Pressman’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is DENIED.

On October 14, 2024, petitioner served a Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”) on respondent Palos Verdes Homes Association by mail. (Meerson Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. 1.) Based on the date of service of the RFPs, responses were due on November 18, 2024. (CCP § 2031.260(a) [response to inspection demand due 30 days after service], 1013(a) [service by mail extends deadline by five calendar days].) Respondent served responses on November 22, 2024. (Meerson Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 3.) For each request for production, respondent asserted that it would not comply because all responsive documents are privileged communications. (Meerson Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 3.)

Petitioner now moves to compel a response to the RFPs pursuant to CCP § 2031.300. (Mtn. at 3:9-14.) CCP § 2031.300 sets forth the governing rules when a party who was served a request for production fails to serve a timely response. CCP § 2031.300(b) states: “The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” Here, however, before petitioner filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses on December 2, 2024, respondent had already served a response on petitioner, which petitioner received on November 22, 2024. (Meerson Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 3; see also Meerson Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 4 [email communications between petitioner and respondent with responses attached].) Nonetheless, despite having already received responses to his Request for Production of Documents, petitioner filed a motion to compel.

Because petitioner already received the relief allowed under CCP § 2031.300(b), namely, a response to the discovery demand, the motion is moot. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.