Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV17990, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17990    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 31, 2023, Plaintiffs Krystal Latoya Montgomery, Jeremiah Daquan Montgomery, Anterrika DeShante Willis, and Kristina Lashay Simpson, individually and as guardians at litem for various minors, filed this action against Defendants George Morcos and Mervat Morcos. The complaint alleges (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (2) negligence, (3) nuisance, and (4) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4. On October 2, 2024, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the fourth cause of action without prejudice.

            On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff Krystal Montgomery filed the instant two motions to compel Defendants to produce documents in accordance with their statements of compliance. Defendants filed their oppositions on November 22, 2024. Plaintiff filed her replies on November 27, 2024 and December 2, 2024.  

            Because the motions are substantively identical, they are advanced and heard on this date (December 6, 2024).

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendants responded to the RFPs on April 12, 2024. (Gi Decl. ¶ 4; Ohn Decl. ¶ 4.) In response to RFP Nos. 11 and 33, Defendants identified the documents that they intend on producing. (Id., Ex. B.) However, Defendants did not produce the documents. (Id., ¶ 6.) These motions followed.

            Defendants produced documents on November 4, 2024. (Michels Decl. ¶ 9.) However, the documents are redacted and incomplete. (See Gi Supp. Decl.) Defendants have not included any privilege log explaining the redactions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c).) Thus, an order compelling production is required.  

As for sanctions, Defense counsel mistakenly believed that the documents had been produced along with Defendants’ written responses. (Michels Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court finds this to be substantial justification for the failure to produce.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel production is GRANTED. Defendants shall produce responsive documents within 15 days of this order. Sanctions are denied.