Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20TRCV00271, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00271    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                       Thursday, March 9, 2023   

Department B                                                                                                                           Calendar No. 8

PROCEEDINGS

Eunmin Kim v. Andrew Lwin, et al.  

20TRCV00271

1.      Andrew Lwin’s Motion to Compel [Further] Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One       

TENTATIVE RULING

            Andrew Lwin’s Motion to Compel [Further] Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is denied.

            Background

            Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 25, 2020. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff was a tenant and rented a room from Defendant. Defendant sexually harassed Plaintiff on numerous occasions. Defendant then evicted Plaintiff when she refused Defendant’s advances and assaulted and battered her when she warned other potential tenants.  Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: 1. Retaliatory Eviction; 2. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; 3. Constructive Eviction; 4. Battery; 5. Assault; 6. IIED; 7. NIED; 8. Violation of Gov. Code 12955(a); 9. Violation of Gov. Code 12955(f); 10. Violation of Civ. Code 51.9; 11. Violation of California Code of Regulations 12120.

            Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

            A party responding to an inspection demand shall respond to each demand with one of the following:  a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)  A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

            If a demanding party believes the responding party responded inadequately, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)   

            Meet and Confer

            Defendant set forth a meet and confer declaration in substantial compliance with CCP §§ 2031.310(b)(2) and 2016.040.  (Declaration, Andrew Lwin.)

            Motion to Compel

            Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

            The motion is denied because Defendant failed to file and serve the mandatory separate statement pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345.  Rule 3.1345 states, in relevant part: “(a) Separate statement required[.] Except as provided in (b), any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things[.]”  None of the exceptions provided in Rule 3.1345(b) applies here.

            Therefore, the motion to compel further responses and request for sanctions is denied.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.