Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 2019-01090585, Date: 2023-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Production

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiff, Ned Leiba, moves for an order granting an order compelling Defendants, Gregg Gann (“Gann”), and Westview Services, Inc. (“Westview”) to (1) provide responsive documents withheld from production based on various improper objections and/or (2) provide verified supplemental responses withdrawing such objections in response to Request for Production, Set Two, and awarding monetary sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $3,900. The Motion is DENIED in its entirety.

Initially, the Court notes that this motion appears to actually be two separate motions combined into one. One against Defendant Gann as to Requests for Production, Set 2, and the other against Nominal Defendant, Westview as to Requests for Production, Set 2.

However, there is no Separate Statement as to the requests and the entirety of the responses at issue for either Gann or Westview. While it appears that the requests at issue for Gann are Nos. 13-31, and 33-34, and that the requests at issue for Westview are Nos. 11-35, Plaintiff does not clearly state that this is the case. Plaintiff’s submission of copies of Gann’s and Westview’s responses to the discovery at issue as part of the reply papers does not comply with the requirement for a separate statement.

A separate statement is required for a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents unless the court has allowed the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute in place of a separate statement. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3), (b)(2).) A trial court may deny a motion to compel on the basis that it is procedurally defective and fails to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, as Plaintiff failed to file code-compliant separate statement].)

In addition, on the merits, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by each request at issue. A motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the discovery request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) 

The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions in the amount of $630 against Plaintiff and his attorney, Ellsworth Vines, Esq., to be paid within 30 days of the notice of ruling.

Defendant Gann to give notice.