Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 22-01243053, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Production

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiff Bake & Rockfield, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling PropVest Property Management, Inc. (“PropVest”) to provide responses and produce documents pursuant to a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (the “Subpoena”).

If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(a).)  This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(b).)

The Subpoena was served on PropVest on June 1, 2022 by personal service.  (Declaration of Paul E. Van Hoomissen, Ex. 1.)  On June 9, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff agreed to continue the date of production to June 27, 2022.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  On June 23, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff spoke with a representative of PropVest, who asserted she would need to be paid for her time to comply with the Subpoena and Plaintiff must acquiesce to her timing demands.  (Id., ¶ 12.)  Counsel stated he would be willing to discuss the issue but the representative hung up the phone before any resolution could be reached.  (Ibid.)  Counsel sent an email advising he would be willing to discuss an extension of time but received no response.  (Id., ¶ 13.)  Counsel was advised by the Deposition Officer that PropVest had not produced any documents on June 27, 2022.  (Id., ¶ 14.)  

The Court finds Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement here.  Any failure in the meet and confer process was the result of PropVest’s conduct, rather than any failure by Plaintiff. The Court further finds Plaintiff’s Motion is timely, as PropVest never served responses or objections to the Subpoena and never produced documents in response to the Subpoena, such that the record has not been completed.

Because PropVest has failed to produce any documents in response to the Subpoena or served any valid objections to the Subpoena, the Motion is GRANTED.  PropVest is ORDERED to produce any responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control within 20 days.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions, stating it will submit a declaration with its reply brief identifying the total attorney fees and costs incurred.  However, Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion does not include a request for monetary sanctions.  “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)  Because Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion does not identify every person against whom the sanction is sought and the type of sanction sought, the request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.