Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV38443, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38443    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 68

Limelight International, Ltd. vs. Oneworld Apparel, LLC, 22STCV38443

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Moving Party: Defendant RLoom, LLC

Motion

            Defendant RLoom, LLC (Defendant) has moved for an order compelling further responses and production of documents from Plaintiff Limelight International, Ltd. (Plaintiff). Defendant filed this motion pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010(e), (h), and (i); 2023.030(a) and 2031.310(a) and (h). For having to bring this motion, Defendant has also requested sanctions in the amount of $3,945 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys of record.

            Plaintiff’s opposition, though filed a few days late, indicates that Plaintiff served amended responses to the requests for production on November 12, 2023. 

            Defendant indicates in its reply that the amended responses are defective on their face and incomplete because (1) the responses do not identify the document with the specific request number to which the documents respond, pursuant to CCP § 2031.280; (2) the responses are not unequivocal about whether Plaintiff will comply with the demand or not, pursuant to CCP § 2031.220; (3) the responses are not properly verified pursuant to CCP § 2015.5 because the declarant does not state that the foregoing is true and correct; and (4) Plaintiff has not produced all responses documents that Defendant believes are in Plaintiff’s possession.

            For issues numbers 1-3, Plaintiff must provide code compliant responses and identify the document with the request number to which the document responds, answer unequivocally as to whether Plaintiff intends to comply with the request, and properly verify the responses. 

As for the documents that Defendant says Plaintiff failed to produce, Plaintiff must produce all documents responsive to the request in Plaintiff’s possession, unless Plaintiff states unequivocally that it has produced all the documents in its possession. Plaintiff’s response to RFP No. 28, which Defendant mentions in its reply, already states that “Responding Party will comply with this Demand in whole and all responsive documents in Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control will be provided…” Plaintiff reserved the right to supplement the request as investigation is ongoing. No further unequivocal response is needed for that response. 

As for the sanctions, Plaintiff did not provide amended responses until after Defendant had filed the motion. Therefore, sanctions for Defendant having to bring the motion are warranted pursuant to CRC 3.12348. The Court awards sanctions against Plaintiff and its attorneys of record in Defendant’s requested amount of $3,945.

Order

1.     To the extent that Plaintiff’s amended responses are not code compliant, the Court orders Plaintiff to provide code compliant responses.

2.     Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys of record are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $3,945 to Defendant.