Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 3STCV21644, Date: 2024-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Defendant and Cross-Complainant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, LP’s Motion to Enforce Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Townscape Management Inc.’s Compliance with Responses to Request for Production (Set One) is GRANTED. Townscape Management Inc. is ordered to provide verified responses 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.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, LP’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses for its Request for Production (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $4,475.00 against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Townscape Management Inc., and its attorney. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, L.P.’s (“Sunset”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Townscape Management, Inc. (“Townscape”), to comply as agreed with production of documents in response to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Request Nos. 1-32. (Notice of Motion RFP pgs. 1:6-9, 3:11-14, Declaration of Benjamin Marsh (“Decl. of Marsh”).

Sunset also requests an award of sanctions against Townscape and its counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,475.00. (Notice of Motion RFP, pg. 1:10-13; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2031.300(c).)

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

Defendant and Cross-Complainant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, L.P. (“Defendant”) is the owner of a residential and commercial project located at 8150 Sunset Boulevard. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1:1-6.) Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Townscape (“Plaintiff”) was hired to lead development of the construction project at 8150 Sunset Boulevard (Notice of Motion, pg. 1:6-8.)

On or about November 8, 2023, Sunset served RFP (Set One) on Plaintiff by mail and email. (Notice of Motion RFP, pg. 2:14-16.) Plaintiff’s deadline to respond was on or by December 13, 2023. (Decl. of Marsh, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested an extension, and Defendant’s counsel granted Plaintiff an extension until February 14, 2024 (Decl. of Marsh, ¶ 7, Exhibit 2.) On or about February 14, 2024, Plaintiff served written responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s response failed to produce any requested documents. (Notice of Motion, RFP, pg. 2:15-19.) On or about March 22, 2024, Townscape’s counsel confirmed that it would serve supplemental responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Request Nos. 33-38, which have not been served as of the date of this motion and have been declared a non-issue by Defendant’s counsel at this time. (Decl. of Marsh, ¶ 9, Exhibit 6.)

Defendant further alleges that Plaintiff has interfered with the progress of discovery by filing a Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas of Business Records served on third parties. (Notice of Motion, RFP, pg. 2:24-28.) As of the date of this motion, Sunset’s counsel declares that no further documents have been served on Sunset. (Decl. of Marsh, ¶ 15.) Sunset now moves to compel responses.

On May 24, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel compliance with responses to requests for production. Plaintiff filed its opposition on August 3, 2024. Defendant filed its reply on August 16, 2024. The motion is scheduled for a hearing on August 23, 2024.

Unless limited by order of the court, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (C.C.P. §2017.010.) The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally. Information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.

Plaintiff argues it has agreed to comply with the requests as reasonably able, given that the production requests exceed one million pages of documents, and Defendant has been provided with hundreds of thousands of pages of requested documents. (Opp’n., pg. 3:22-28; Declaration of Tyler J. King (“Decl. of King”) ¶ 4.) Plaintiff further argues that Defendant has yet to introduce evidence that plaintiff has refused to produce documents. (Decl. of King, 4:24-28.)

Plaintiff does not dispute that it agreed to produce responsive documents to Defendant and has failed to do so. Plaintiff does not dispute it still has not produced the documents as of the filing of its opposition nine months after the requests were propounded on Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for Plaintiff to comply with its responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted.

C.C.P. §2031.320(b) provides that a court “shall” impose monetary sanctions against a party or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel compliance unless the party subject to sanctions shows “substantial justification” for its actions.

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $4,475.00. Defendant’s counsel declares his hourly rate is $895. (Decl. of Marsh. ¶ 18.) Defendant’s counsel declares he spent a total of 5 hours on this motion, (3 hours preparing the motion, and an estimated 2 hours on motion hearing attendance and preparation.) (Decl. of Marsh ¶ 16-17.)

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court