Case Number: 21TRCV00017    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                           Thursday, May 18, 2023

Department B                                                                                                                              Calendar No. 5

PROCEEDINGS

            Tanya Gerardi, et al. v. Socal Better Homes, LLC, et al.

            21TRCV00017

1.      Carrington Home Solutions, LP’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Sanctions

2.      Carrington Home Solutions, LP’s Motion to Compel Document Production, Further Deposition Session, and for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING

            Carrington Home Solutions, LP’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Sanctions is moot.

Carrington Home Solutions, LP’s Motion to Compel Document Production, Further Deposition Session, and for Sanctions is granted, in part.

            Background

            Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on January 8, 2021. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. The action concerns negligence and construction defects with respect to Plaintiffs’ real property located 2271 Estribo Drive in Rolling Hills Estates, California. Upon purchasing, Plaintiffs became aware of several defects that were never disclosed. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Negligence; 2. Violation of Building Standards (Civ. Code § 896); 3. Strict Liability; 4. Breach of Warranty.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests 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, Neil J. Cooper).

Motion

After the motion was filed, Plaintiffs served further responses to the Requests. (Decl., Bryan C. Swaim, ¶¶ 3-5; Ex. A). Therefore, the motion is moot.

Defendant argues that the further responses that were served remain deficient. However, the propriety of these responses are not at issue with this motion and would be the subject of a further meet and confer process and a subsequent motion to compel. In addition, the Court advises the parties that the Court requires an informal discovery conference prior to the hearing of a discovery motion.

Motion to Compel Further Deposition and Document Production

The party noticing the deposition may move for an order compelling appearance at the deposition and production of documents, pursuant to the deposition notice, from the party deponent who fails to appear or produce materials requested in the deposition notice, and who has not served a valid objection under § 2025.410(a).  CCP § 2025.450(a). 

“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”  CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).

Meet and Confer

Defendant set forth a meet and confer declaration in compliance with CCP § 2025.450(b)(2) and CCP § 2016.040. (Declaration, Neil J. Cooper).

Motion to Compel Deposition and for Sanctions

Defendant specifically moves “for an order compelling plaintiff Christopher Gerardi (“Plaintiff”) to, within thirty (30) days, (1) produce all documents responsive to the requests for production, (2) sit for a further deposition session, and (3) pay sanctions of $1,910 incurred in connection with this motion.” (Notice of Motion, page 2, lines 5-8).

The parties spend much time discussing the deposition of Tanya Gerardi but that deposition has no relevance to this motion. However, there is no dispute that Christopher Gerardi’s deposition has yet to be completed.

Thus, the motion to compel deposition and to produce documents as to Christopher Gerardi is granted. Christopher Gerardi is ordered to appear for deposition and to produce responsive documents at a reasonable date and time to be determined by agreement of the parties.  

Sanctions as to both Motions

The Court denies Defendant’s requests for sanctions, at this time. However, this ruling does not mean that future conduct that amounts to a misuse of the discovery process may not subject a party to sanctions.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.