Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV01654, Date: 2025-05-05 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: 24CHCV01654    Hearing Date: May 5, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 1/21/25

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Edvard Avetyan

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Fuzion Home Services, Inc.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Fuzion Home Services, Inc. to provide further responses to Plaintiff Edvard Avetyan’s first set of Requests for Production, and imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant Fuzion Home Services, Inc. and its attorney of record in the amount of $1,935.00.

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged property damage resulting from the installation of solar panels performed by Defendants at Plaintiffs’ residence.

On May 1, 2024, Plaintiffs Edvard Avetyan (“Avetyan”) and Armine Ovasapyan (“Ovasapyan”) (collectively,  “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Fuzion Home Services, Inc. (“Fuzion”), American Contractors Indemnity Company (“ACIC”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 40, alleging three causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty, and (3) enforce claim on license bond. Subsequently, Defendants ACIC and Fuzion submitted their respective Answers to the Complaint on June 18 and July 5, 2024.

On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff Avetyan filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses from Fuzion to Plaintiff Avetyan’s Requests for Production, Set One (the “Motion”).

On May 2, 2025, Fuzion filed an untimely Opposition. To date, no Reply papers have been filed.

ANALYSIS

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that … [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] … [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] … [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

A.    Procedural Requirements

1.      Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be brought within 45 days of service of the verified response, supplemental verified response, or on a date to which the propounding and responding parties have agreed to in writing; otherwise, the propounding party waives the right to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c); but see Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 134-136 [suggesting that the 45-day deadline does not apply to (i.e., it does not begin to run with service of) objections-only responses; it only applies to responses that are required to be verified].)

“[T]he time within which to make a motion to compel production of documents is mandatory and jurisdictional just as it is for motions to compel further answers[.]” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The 45-day deadline “is ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff Avetyan’s counsel, Afred Shaumyan (“Shaumyan”) states that Defendant Fuzion served its unverified responses to Avetyan’s first set of Requests for Production (“RFP”) on November 4, 2024. (Shaumyan Decl. ¶ 2.) Fuzion subsequently provided a verification on December 3, 2024, thereby triggering the 45-day period under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (c). Accordingly, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel further responses was January 17, 2025. (Id. ¶ 4.)

 Therefore, the Court finds the Motion is timely, as the notice of the motion was served on January 17, 2025, meeting the established deadline.

2.      Meet and Confer

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff Avetyan satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (Shaumyan Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)

3.      Separate Statement

The California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 (a)(2) explicitly states that “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement.” “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Here, Plaintiff Avetyan has fulfilled the requirement by concurrently filing a separate statement with the Motion.

B.     Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One

Plaintiff seeks to compel Fuzion to provide supplemental responses to Requests for Production (“RFP”), Set One.

1)      RFP, Set One, Nos. 1-3, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17-20

RFP No. 1: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS related to any contracts or agreements related to the property.”

RFP No. 2: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS related to the subject property.”

RFP No. 3: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS related to the installation of solar panels on the subject property.”

RFP No. 7: “Please produce all warranties you provided for the quality of the solar panels and their installation at the property.”

RFP No. 8: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS reflecting your compliance with industry standards or practices for the installation of solar panels at the Property.”

RFP No. 12: “Please produce all COMMUNICATIONS between you and any third parties, including the prior owners, regarding the subject property.”

RFP No. 14: “Please provide all DOCUMENTS about any legal actions or claims made against you for problems with related to solar panel installations.”

RFP No. 17: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS supporting your contention that you are not liable for the roof damage at the subject property.”

RFP No. 18: “Please produce any insurance policies identified in your response to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1.”

RFP No. 19: “Please produce any DOCUMENTS identified in your responses to Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories.”

RFP No. 20: “Please produce any DOCUMENTS identified in your responses to Plaintiff’s first set of special interrogatories.”

(Shaumyan Decl. Ex. “2.”)

i.                    Plaintiff Avetyan’s Burden of Showing Good Cause

Plaintiff Avetyan contends that good cause supports the granting of this Motion because Fuzion’s responses to the above-listed RFPs are not code-compliant, as they fail to meet the statutory requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240. (Mot. at p. 5.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 provides that:

“If only part of an item or category of item in a demand … is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (a).) Additionally, if the responding party objects to the demand, it shall do both of the following: (1) identify with particularity any document falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made, and (2) set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b).)

Here, Fuzion’s responses uniformly state that it will comply “in part” with the requests, and that some documents will not be produced based on legal objections. For instance, Fuzion’s responses state: “The Responding Party agrees to comply with this in part, and that all documents in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that Responding Party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (See generally, Shaumyan Decl. Ex. “2.”)

While partial compliance, as indicated in Fuzion’s responses, is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.220 and 2031.240, the Court notes that Fuzion has failed to specify which documents or categories of documents are being produced, nor has it clarified what “in part” refers to. As such, this lack of specificity fails to satisfy the requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (b)(1), which mandates that responses be accompanied by particularized identification of the withheld documents.

Moreover, the responses fail to address Fuzion’s inability to comply with respect to the remainder of the request, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (a).

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff Avetyan’s argument persuasive and that good cause exists to justify the Motion as to RFP Nos. 1-3, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 17-20.

ii.                  Fuzion’s Objections

Defendant Fuzion has asserted objection to the above-listed RFPs based on vagueness, ambiguity, undue burden, overbreadth, relevance, privilege and work product doctrine. (See generally, Shaumyan Decl. Ex. “2.”)

(a)   Relevance, Vagueness, Ambiguity, and Overbreadth Objections

Under California law, discovery is broadly permitted for any information that is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

However, the Court finds that RFP No. 2 is overly broad. It seeks “all documents related to the subject property,” without limitation as to time frame, document type, or subject matter. The lack of specificity renders the request impermissibly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

Accordingly, the Court sustains Fuzion’s objections to RFP No. 2 on the grounds of relevance and overbreadth, and the Motion is DENIED as to that request.

With respect to the remaining above-listed RFPs, the Court finds that the requests are appropriately tailored to the subject matter of the litigation and are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As such, objections based on vagueness, ambiguity, relevance, and overbreadth are OVERRULED as to RFP Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 17-20.

(b)  Undue Burden Objection

The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence “showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)

There is a legislative acknowledgment that some burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. (Id. at p. 418.) Yet, “[t]he objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.” (Ibid.)

Here, Fuzion has failed to provide any evidence substantiating its claim that compliance would impose an undue burden.  

Accordingly, this objection based on undue burden is OVERRULED.

(c)   Privilege and Work-Product Doctrine Objections

Fuzion asserts attorney-client privilege objection as to RFP Nos. 12, 14, and 17. Fuzion also invokes the work-product doctrine as to RFP Nos. 14 and 17.

“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) This privilege protects “confidential communication between client and lawyer.” (Evid. Code, § 952.)

Here, RFP No. 12 seeks communications between Fuzion and third parties regarding the subject property. Because such communications generally do not constitute “confidential communication between client and lawyer” within the meaning of the attorney-client privilege, this objection lacks merit on its face - particularly in the absence of any specific factual showing or explanation to substantiate the claim.

RFP No. 14 requests documents concerning other legal actions or claims against Fuzion for solar panel installation issues. RFP No. 17 seeks documents supporting Fuzion’s contention regarding liability for roof damage. While it is conceivable that a limited subset of responsive documents could fall within the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, Fuzion has provided no privilege log or factual information to support its assertion of protection.

Blanket objections unsupported by specific facts are insufficient. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the privilege and work-product doctrine objections to RFP Nos. 12, 14, and 17 for failure to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1).

(d)  Other Objection – Equal Access

Fuzion further objects to certain RFPs on the basis that the requested documents and information are equally available to Plaintiffs. (See generally Shaumyan Decl. Ex. “2.”)

The Court finds this objection invalid. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, any party may obtain discovery of documents “in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” The code section is clear that if the documents are in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control, it must produce them even if the propounding party could theoretically obtain them elsewhere.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES this objection as well.

Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Fuzion’s objections asserted in its responses to RFP Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 17-20. However, the Court SUSTAINS Fuzion’s relevance and overbreadth objections as to RFP No. 2.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to RFP Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 17-20. The Court DENIES the Motion as to RFP No. 2.

2)      RFP, Set One, Nos. 4-6, 9, 15, and 16

RFP No. 4: “Please produce all COMMUNICATION between you and Plaintiffs.”

RFP No. 5: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS regarding your installation procedures for solar panels.”

RFP No. 6: “Please produce all project plans, installation records and inspection reports for solar panel installation at the subject property.”

RFP No. 9: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS related to any inspections or evaluations at the property conducted by you following the installation of the solar panels.”

RFP No. 15: “Please produce all policies and procedures regarding training and re-qualification of your employees.”

RFP No. 16: “Please produce all of your quality assurance policies and procedures.”

(Shaumyan Decl. Ex. “2.”)

i.                    Plaintiff Avetyan’s Burden of Showing Good Cause

Plaintiff Avetyan asserts that good cause exists for this Motion because Fuzion’s representations of inability to comply with RFP Nos. 4-6, 9, 15, and 16 are not code-compliant, as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. (Mot. at p. 6.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 provides:

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand … 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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Here, Fuzion responded as follows: “The Responding Party is unable to respond to this Request. Following a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry the Responding Party is unable to comply with this Request 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 Responding Party believes that the Propounding Party is in possession of any responsive documents.” (See generally Shaumyan Decl. Ex. “2.”)

While Fuzion’s response recites the statutory language of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, the Court finds it to be boilerplate statement that lacks the required specificity and clarity. Rather than identifying the particular reason for its inability to comply, Fuzion generally lists all possible statutory justifications, without indicating which one actually applies.

Such a general and boilerplate response does not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff Avetyan’s argument persuasive and that he had satisfied the burden in establishing good cause.

ii.                  Fuzion’s Objections

Defendant Fuzion objects to RFP Nos. 4-6, 9, 15 and 16 on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. (Shaumyan Decl. Ex. “2,” at pp. 4-6, 9.) Additionally, Fuzion contends that RFP Nos. 15-16 are irrelevant and overly broad. (Id. at p. 9.)

(a)   Vagueness, Ambiguity, Overbreadth, Unintelligibility Objections

The Court finds these objections lack merits.

First, these RFPs are highly relevant. The communications between Fuzion and Plaintiffs, documents regarding Fuzion’s solar panel installation procedures, inspection records, training of employees, and quality assurance policies are directly relevant to whether Fuzion has met its standard of care and are central to Plaintiffs’ claim for negligence, as well as potentially relevant to breach of implied warranty claim and damages.

Second, the requests are comprehensive and appropriately tailored, specifying documents related to a specific event at a defined location. There is no basis for claiming unintelligibility or overbreadth.

Third, the phrases “communications,” “documents,” “installation records,” “inspection records,” “subject property,” “policies and procedures,” “training and re-qualification,” and “quality assurance” are clear in the context of the discovery. The language used is sufficiently precise and clearly targets a defined scope of discovery. As such, they are neither vague nor ambiguous when read in context.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES these objections.

(b)  Undue burden, and Oppression Objections

Under California law, an objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence “showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) There is a legislative acknowledgment that some burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. (Id. at p. 418.) Yet, “[t]he objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.” (Ibid.)

Here, Fuzion has failed to present any evidence substantiating its objection on the grounds of burden or oppression.

Fuzion argues that the phrase “documents” for its alleged link to Evidence Code section 250.

However, Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.020, subdivision (c), expressly provides that “Documents” and “writing” both “mean a ‘writing,’ as defined in Section 250 of the Evidence Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.020, subd. (c).) The Evidence Code section 250 defines “Writing” as “handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.” (Evid. Code, § 250.)

While the term “documents” is inherently broad, encompassing writings, emails, reports, and other records as understood in discovery practice (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.020, subd. (c); Evid. Code, § 250), the Court finds that its breadth does not render the requests unduly burdensome in the context of discovery practices. Fuzion conflates the terms’ broad but clear meaning with the actual scope and specificity of each RFP, and has not shown how the use of “Documents” makes compliance unreasonably burdensome or oppressive.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES these objections on the grounds of undue burden and oppression.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to RFP Nos. 4-6, 9, and 15-16.

3)      RFP, Set One, Nos. 10, 11, and 13

RFP No. 10: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS exchanged between you and American Contractors Indemnity Company concerning the license bond for which they are the surety.”

RFP No. 11: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS related to any actions you’ve taken to fix or compensate for the damage caused by the faulty solar panel installation at the property.”

RFP No. 13: “Please produce all internal COMMUNICATIONS regarding the subject property.”

(Shaumyan Decl. Ex. “2.”)

i.                    Plaintiff Avetyan’s Burden of Showing Good Cause

Avetyan argues that Defendant Fuzion’s objections to RFP Nos. 10, 11, and 13 are “not well-taken.” However, Avetyan concedes that the substantive responses as to RFP Nos. 11 and 13 are code-compliant under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. (Mot. at p. 7.)

Here, in Fuzion’s responses to RFP Nos. 11 and 13, it stated: “The Responding Party is unable to respond to this Request. Following a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry the Responding Party is unable to comply with this Request because the particular item or category has never existed. The Responding Party is unaware of who may be in possession of any responsive documents.” (Shaumyan Decl. Ex. “2,” at pp. 7-8.)

The Court finds this response to be code-compliant under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, which requires that a party claiming an inability to comply must affirm that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made; specify the reason for non-production; and state whether any other person or entity is known to have possession or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Fuzion’s responses satisfy all these statutory prongs. The response is therefore deemed a complete response to the requests. Fuzion has thereby met its discovery obligation as to RFP Nos. 11 and 13, regardless of inclusion of any objections asserted together with the responses, whether or not those objections have been overruled. Further relief is not warranted as to RFP Nos. 11 and 13.

Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion as to RFP Nos. 11 and 13.

The Court next examines the validity of Fuzion’s objections asserted in its response to RFP No. 10.

ii.                  Fuzion’s Objections

Fuzion responded to RFP No.10 by stating: “Objection. The Request seeks information that is irrelevant inadmissible, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Request seeks documents equally available to the Propounding Party.” (Shaumyan Decl. Ex. “2,” at p. 7.)

(a)   Relevance

The Court finds that RFP No. 10 seeks information that is relevant under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010. Discovery of bond-related documents could reveal Fuzion’s compliance or liability in connection with the solar installation at issue. Such documents are potentially relevant not only to Plaintiffs’ negligence claim but also to their claim for recovery against the surety Defendant, ACIC.

Therefore, the Court OVERRULES the relevance objection.

(b)  Equal Access

As previously discussed, this boilerplate objection is invalid. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, any party may obtain discovery of documents “in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” The code section is clear that if the documents are in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control, it must produce them even if the propounding party could theoretically obtain them elsewhere.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES this objection as well.

The Court finds that Plaintiff Avetyan has shown good cause to compel further responses as to RFP No. 10 and that Defendant Fuzion’s objections to RFP No. 10 lack merit.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to RFP No. 10.

C.    Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), provides, in pertinent part, that “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 further response to 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.”

As the Court has granted the Motion in part and denied it in part, it finds that mandatory sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, available only to the prevailing party, are inapplicable under these circumstances.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Edvard Avetyan’s unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Fuzion Home Services, Inc. is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant supplemental responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 1, 3-10, 12, 14-16, and 17-20 within 20 days.

Plaintiff Edvard Avetyan’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.