Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV00825, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV00825    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND AND INSPECTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 10/1/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Octagon Construction, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to compel Defendant R&R Demo and Grading Corp. to respond to Plaintiff Octagon Construction, Inc.’s Request for Production of Documents specified in the Notice of Deposition, and to impose monetary sanctions against Defendant R&R Demo and Grading Corp. in the amount of $1,400.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of alleged contractual disputes.

On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Octagon Construction, Inc. (“Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant” or “Octagon”) filed a Complaint against Defendant/Cross-Complainant R&R Demo and Grading Corp. (“Defendant/Cross-Complainant” or “R&R”) and Does 1 through 20, alleging a single cause of action for Breach of Oral Contract. Subsequently, on September 20, 2023, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On September 25, 2023, R&R filed a Cross-Complaint against Octagon and Roes 1 to 10, alleging breach of contract. Subsequently, Octagon filed its Answer to the Cross-Complaint on October 23, 2023.

On October 1, 2024, Octagon filed the instant Motion to Compel Response to Demand for Inspection (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on October 10, 2024, the Court granted Octagon’s ex-parte application to advance the hearing date on the Motion, setting the new hearing date for January 9, 2025.

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection ... thereafter fails to permit the inspection ... in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

A.    Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Octagon moves the Court to compel R&R’s responses to a demand for production of documents specified in Octagon’s Amended Notice of Deposition dated January 4, 2024 (the “Notice”), pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450, subdivision (a), and 2031.320, subdivision (a). (Mot. at p. 3.)

Octagon’s counsel, Michael S. Magnuson (“Magnuson”) declares that on January 30, 2024, he took the deposition of the BAHRAM RABII (“Rabii”) who is the Responsible Managing Employee ("RME") of R&R. Rabii is also the owner of the company. The Notice included ten categories of documents directly related to the allegations in the Complaint, the defenses thereto, and the Cross-Complaint of R&R. (Magnuson Decl. ¶ 3.) At the deposition, Rabii acknowledged that he has within his custody or control a number of documents requested in the Notice. (Id. ¶ 5.) The deposition transcript indicates that, in response to a question, “What is the process that you need to do to be able to come up with documents that are connected to this lawsuit?” Rabii stated, in part, “I’m going to give you all of the documents you are asking.” (Id. Ex. “2,” at 18:14-20.) At the close of the deposition the parties stipulated that they would return for the second session of the deposition following the production of the documents. (Ibid.) Subsequently, Magnuson made several attempts, including telephone calls and email to counsel on August 3, 2024, to obtain production of the documents included in the Notice. Despite these efforts, no responses or documents have been received from R&R’s counsel. (Magnuson Decl. ¶ 6.)

Based on the above records, the Court finds that Rabii’s acknowledgement of his intent to produce all requested documents constitutes a statement of compliance by R&R. Consequently, Octagon is justified in seeking an order compelling compliance.

Additionally, R&R has not submitted an Opposition, effectively waiving any responses to the claims raised in the Motion.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the unopposed Motion.

B.     Monetary Sanctions

“Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).)

Additionally, California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(a) further provides, “The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Underlines added.)

Here, R&R has neither filed an Opposition nor separately requested relief from the sanction on the grounds of substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Accordingly, the Court finds that mandatory sanctions are applicable in this case. Utilizing the lodestar approach, the Court determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $700.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $350.00 for two hours reasonably spent.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART Octagon’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Octagon Construction, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Defendant R&R Demo and Grading Corp. is ordered to produce requested documents, specified in the Amended Notice of Deposition dated January 4, 2024, within 10 days.

Plaintiff Octagon Construction, Inc.’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant R&R Demo and Grading Corp is ordered to pay $700.00 to Plaintiff Octagon Construction, Inc. within 10 days.

Moving party to give notice.