Judge: Jacqueline Lewis, Case: 21PSCV00636, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00636 Hearing Date: December 12, 2022 Dept: A
Plaintiff Art Weiss, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Compliance
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.320.
Respondent: NO OPPOSITION (due 11/8)
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Art Weiss, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Compliance Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.320 is GRANTED. Defendant Jefferson Liou is ordered to comply with this court’s July 7, 2022, discovery order by providing complete code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Document Production Set One without objection within 10 days of the issuance of this order. Defendant is also further ordered to pay previously awarded sanctions in the amount of $180 to Plaintiff within 10 days of the issuance of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of lease agreement action. On November 29, 2017, Plaintiff Art Weiss, Inc. entered into a lease agreement with Cloud Control, Inc. (Cloud Control) in which Plaintiff agreed to lease property in Baldwin Park to Cloud Control for three years at $19,875 a month. Defendant Jefferson Liou also signed the lease as a guarantor. In December 2018, Cloud Control stopped paying rent and vacated the premises.
On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint and First Amended Complaint against Defendant, Cloud Control, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) common counts (against all defendants); (2) breach of contract (against all defendants); (3) breach of guaranty (against Defendant); and (4) unjust enrichment (against all defendants). Defendant answered with a general denial and affirmative defenses on October 27, 2021.
On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, and admissions. On July 7, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion and gave Defendant 30 days to comply with the court’s order and pay $180 to Plaintiff’s counsel. On August 30, Defendant provided responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories and one of Plaintiff’s four requests for document production. (Patterson Decl., ¶ 7-8, Ex. 2-3.) On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to Defendant’s counsel, requesting responses to the remaining requests for production and signed verification pages. (Patterson Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive any additional responses or the payment of $180 ordered by the court. (Patterson Decl., ¶ 11.)
On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion and a case management conference are set for November 22.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff moves the court to compel Defendant to comply with the court’s July 7, 2022, discovery order by providing complete responses to requests for document production and making court ordered payments of $180. The court agrees.
A propounding party may move for an order compelling compliance if the party to whom requests were directed fails to produce documents in accordance with the party’s responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.) A court may also impose monetary sanctions if a party has failed to obey an order compelling inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents requested (1) copies of all documents and communications between Defendant and Plaintiff “relating to the factual circumstances regarding the [lease] negotiations;” (2) copies of all documents and communications between Defendant and Plaintiff “relating to the events and circumstances which caused [Defendant] to default o the terms of the [guaranty],” (3) copies of the lease, addendum, and guaranty known and available to Defendant; and (4) copies of all documents identified or referred to in Plaintiff’s special interrogatories or Defendant’s responses. (Motion to Compel, Patterson Decl., p. 27-28)
In Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s request for document production, Defendant only responded to the first request and did not provide responses to the other three. (Patterson Decl., ¶ 10-11, Ex. 2.) Defendant’s responses to the special interrogatories also reference an email in the affirmative defenses, which Defendant has not provided as required by the request for document production number 4. (Patterson Decl., ¶ 10-11, Ex. 3.)
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the court’s July 7, 2022, discovery order. Initially, Plaintiff requested additional monetary sanctions be imposed, but failed to submit a supplemental declaration upon which the court could base an award of attorney fees and costs.
At the hearing on November 22, 2022, the court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the issue of sanctions. The court received and reviewed declarations submitted by counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant.
Based on the court’s review of the supplemental declarations, the court will not award monetary sanctions. The language of Code of Civil Procedure, §2023.040 is clear insofar as it requires “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, . . . the type of sanction sought. The notice shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Emphasis added.) Here, untimely declaration filed by Plaintiff’s counsel fails to comply with the Code.
Accordingly, the request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Defendant
Jefferson Liou is ordered to comply with this court’s July 7, 2022, discovery
order by providing complete, code-compliant responses, without objection, to
Plaintiff’s Request for Document Production, Set One, within 10 days of the
issuance of this order.
Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
Defendant represents to the court that Defendant has already paid sanctions in the amount of $180 to Plaintiff, as previously ordered.