Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV06767, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff 15907 Valley Vista LLC’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses for its Interrogatories and Request for Production is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is granted pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.290(b) as to all Defendants except Valley Vista 18, as Valley Vista provided responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, and any such motion to compel against it is denied as moot. (See Decl. of Windisch ¶5, Exh. B.) Defendants HRB, Shabtay, Anette, Shachar, and Azami are ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s IROG compliant with C.C.P. §§2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objections within 20 days.

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to RFPs, the Court rules as follows.

On July 20, 2023, the initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in this action took place, wherein Plaintiff submitted a CMO, which was approved by this Court and entered as an order on July 28, 2023. (Decl. of Lord ¶4, Exh. A.) Section IV of the CMO requires each party to respond to a request for production of documents. Section IV(C) requires the “Contractor and Seller/Contractor-Related Individuals” to produce documents listed in Exhibit A of the CMO (Page 15) within thirty-five days of service of the CMO. Documents include, inter alia, insurance policies, sales documents, contracts, drawings and specifications, photographs and videos, purchase orders, invoices, costs reports including internal cost reports, receipts, accounting records, and inspection records. At the time of documents production, Defendants were required by the CMO to issue a verified notice of compliance, a privilege list, and a “Notice of Plans and Specifications” identifying each different set of plans or specifications in its possession. Plaintiff argues that to date Defendants have failed to supply any response to the document production requirements of Section IV (C) of the CMO. Plaintiff now moves to compel responses.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel RFPs is granted pursuant to C.C.P. §2031.300 as to all Defendants except Valley Vista 18, as Valley Vista provided responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, and any such motion to compel against it is denied as moot. (See Decl. of Windisch ¶6, Exh. C.) Defendants HRB, Shabtay, Anette, Shachar, and Azami are ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFP pursuant to C.C.P. §2031.210 and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections within 20 days of this ruling.

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions on the basis sanctions have not been properly noticed in Plaintiff’s notice of motion as to each Defendant.

[1] The Court notes Plaintiff owes this Court $660.00 in fees. Each motion to compel must be separately filed for each defendant and each type of document Plaintiff seeks to compel from the individual defendant. Here, there are six defendants and two discovery documents (IROGS, RFP) that Plaintiff seeks to compel. The filing fee for each motion is $60.00 per motion. Plaintiff has already paid one $60.00 filing fee for the instant motion. As such, Plaintiff owes 11 additional filing fees. (6 filing fees for IROGS + 5 filing fees for RFPs = 11 filings.) 11 filing fees x $60 = $660.00. The Court’s ruling on the instant motions is not effective until the filing fees Plaintiff owes to this Court are paid.

[2] The Court notes Plaintiff’s motion is for a motion to compel, yet one of the statutes cited in support of Plaintiff’s motion is for a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. (C.C.P. §2030.300.) The proper statute for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories is C.C.P. §2030.290.