Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2022-01252604, Date: 2023-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Before the court are three motions to compel compliance with agreements to produce documents as to defendants The Liberty Company Insurance Brokers, LLC, Michael McDonald and Andrew McDonald filed by Plaintiff, Koru Risk Management, LLC.  For the reasons discussed below, the court deems the motions MOOT, except for sanctions.

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).)

In the omnibus reply, Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants made three document productions after these motions were filed.  (Richmond Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)  Plaintiff speculates that additional responsive documents exist.  However, Defendants’ counsel stated under oath that he provided Plaintiff with everything that was requested.  (Grant Decl., ¶ 6.)  In addition, although Plaintiff contends documents remain outstanding, it has not identified any specific request numbers for which it contends production is incomplete.  If Plaintiff suspects documents remain outstanding, Plaintiff can seek clarification via meet and confer efforts or other written discovery or depositions.  Further, as there is no fixed time limit to bring a motion to compel compliance with a party’s statement of compliance, if an informal resolution cannot be reached, Plaintiff is free to file another motion to compel compliance as to any specific requests which Plaintiff contends remain outstanding.

In light of Defendants’ three document productions made since the filing of these motions and Defendants’ counsel’s representation, the court deems these motions moot.

As to sanctions, the court finds Defendants failed to provide substantial justification for the five-month delay in providing their document production and, as such, sanctions are warranted here.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(b).)  As Plaintiff states, these motions were not filed a mere week after Defendants agreed to produce documents.  They were filed after months of meet and confer efforts and Defendants serving two sets of supplemental responses.  There is also no indication that Defendants contacted Plaintiff to advise that the production would be delayed past November 11, 2022.  Plaintiff waited an additional 10 days before filing the motions.  Given that Plaintiff had been waiting for documents since June 2022, it was not unreasonable for Plaintiff to file these motions when it did.  The imposition of sanctions thus appears just.

The court awards a reasonable monetary sanction of $1,200 per motion against each Defendant only, payable to Plaintiff, through its counsel of record, within 60 days of notice of this ruling.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.