Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: BS169525, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BS169525    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 8, 2021, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant pursuant to an arbitration award. On January 17, 2022, Plaintiffs propounded a Request for Production of Documents seeking post-judgment discovery of evidence to enforce the judgment. To date, Defendants have not served any responses. On June 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel responses and for monetary sanctions. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

            A judgment creditor may demand inspection of documents in the same manner as provided in the Civil Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030, subd. (a).) Inspection demands served under this provision may be enforced in the same manner as inspection demands in a civil action. (Id., subd. (c).)

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id., subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

            The RFPs were served on January 17, 2022, and Defendant has not served any responses. (Berke Decl. ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant has surpassed the 30-day deadline, warranting an order to compel. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260(a), 2031.300(b).) Additionally, sanctions are warranted because Defendant has not filed an opposition and thus fails to provide substantial justification for its actions. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

            Plaintiffs’ counsel claims to have spent 9 hours at $400 per hour preparing this motion. (Berke Decl. ¶ 7.) The number of hours is unreasonably high given the simplicity of the motion and lack of opposition. The reasonable amount is 3 hours at $400 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. This amounts to $1,260.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses is GRANTED. Defendant is to produce responses to Requests for Production within 15 days. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant in the amount of $1,260, to be paid within 30 days.