Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV02179, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02179    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff Lee Newson filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles, asserting (1) disability discrimination, (2) workplace harassment, (3) retaliation, and (4) failure to prevent.

            Plaintiff alleges that he was prevented from promotion to detective due to discrimination against his disabilities. Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely accused of DUI and arrested because Defendant is aware he takes prescribed medication for prior injuries and conditions. Defendant allegedly used this as a pretext to block Plaintiff’s promotion to detective. Plaintiff was ultimately suspended for 22 days without pay. Upon return, Plaintiff was involuntarily transferred to a different station.

            On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to his requests for production. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b), 2033.290(b).) The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Miller Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            The party seeking production of documents bears the initial burden of showing good cause through a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s separate statement sets forth good cause for the requested information. Without an opposition, Defendant has articulated no argument or authority to the contrary. Defendant also offers no support for its objections.   

            Furthermore, a statement of compliance “shall state that the production . . . will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) “A representation of inability to comply . . . shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Id., § 2031.230.) A response must also “[i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.” (Id., § 2031.240.)

            Defendant’s responses do not comply with these requirements. Defendant identified some documents that it intends on producing, but did not indicate whether it was complying in whole or in part, or whether certain documents were being withheld. To the extent any documents are withheld based on objections, Defendant does not identify the documents. Defendant also indicated an inability to comply with some of the requests because “there are no documents known to this Defendant responsive to this request at this time.” This is an incomplete response because it does not explain whether the documents were lost, never existed, etc., and does not identify anyone believed to be in possession of responsive documents. Therefore, further responses are warranted.

            Sanctions are warranted as Defendant provides no substantial justification for its failure to properly respond to the RFPs. Plaintiff’s counsel reasonably claims an hourly rate of $350. (Miller Decl. ¶ 13.) However, the 18 hours claimed are exaggerated given the simplicity of the motion and lack of opposition. The Court finds that the reasonable number of hours is 3 hours. Plaintiff is also entitled to the $60 filing fee. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the total amount of $1,110.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve supplemental responses to the subject RFPs within 15 days of this order. The Court sanctions Defendant in the amount of $1,110, to be paid within 30 days of this order.