Judge John C. Gastelum, Case 22-01261742 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 22-01261742, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

(1-2) Motions to Compel Production (3-4) Motion to Compel Response to RFAs

Tentative Ruling: (1, 3) Balboa Capital Corporation’s unopposed motions to compel defendant Ryan Boone to provide (1) a production and further verified responses to Balboa’s Demand for Inspection, Set No. One and (2) further responses to Balboa’s Requests for Admission, Set One are GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that a party may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; and (3) an objection in the response is without merit or is too general. Section 2031.310(b)(1) requires the moving papers to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevant to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

If the responding party fails to permit inspection in accordance with its agreement to comply with an inspection demand, the demanding party's remedy is to file a motion compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.) There is no fixed time limit on this motion. And, no “attempt to resolve informally” need be shown. All that has to be shown is the responding party's failure to comply as agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(a) provides:

On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.

Plaintiff moves to compel a production and further responses to Inspection Demand Nos. 1 through 7 as well as further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 3 through 7.

Plaintiff contends the responses provided by Boone to each of the demands are not code compliant. Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the demands. (ROA 100, Agbayani Decl., ¶6.) Boone’s responses are not code compliant and he has not opposed the motion.

Plaintiff also contends that the responses provided by Boone to each of the subject Requests for Admission is evasive, incomplete, and not code compliant. Boone has not opposed the motion and Plaintiff’s arguments are well taken.

Accordingly, the Motions are GRANTED. Defendant Ryan Boone is ORDERED to serve a production and further responses to Inspection Demand Nos. 1 through 7 and to serve further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 3 through 7 within 20 days of the notice of the ruling.

Defendant Ryan Boone is also ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount of $889.50 for the inspection demand motion and in the amount of $929 for the requests for admissions motion to Plaintiff within 20 days of the notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff to give notice.

(2, 4) Balboa Capital Corporation’s unopposed motions to compel defendant 3^rd Coast Diesels LLC to provide (1) a production and further verified responses to Balboa’s Demand for Inspection, Set No. One and (2) further responses to Balboa’s Requests for Admission, Set One are GRANTED.

If the responding party fails to permit inspection in accordance with its agreement to comply with an inspection demand, the demanding party's remedy is to file a motion compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.) There is no fixed time limit on this motion. And, no “attempt to resolve informally” need be shown. All that must be shown is the responding party's failure to comply as agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(a) provides:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.

Plaintiff moves to compel a production and further responses to Inspection Demand Nos. 1 through 7 as well as further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 3 through 9.

Plaintiff contends that the responses provided by 3^rd Coast Diesels to each of the demands is not code compliant. Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the demands. (ROA 105, Agbayani Decl., ¶6.) 3^rd Coast Diesels’s responses are not code compliant and it has not opposed the motion.

Plaintiff also contends that the responses provided by 3^rd Coast Diesels to each of the subject Requests for Admission is evasive, incomplete, and not code compliant. 3^rd Coast Diesels has not opposed the motion and Plaintiff’s arguments are well taken.

Accordingly, the Motions are GRANTED. 3^rd Coast Diesels is ORDERED to serve a production and further responses to Inspection Demand Nos. 1 through 7 and to serve further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 3 through 9 within 20 days of the notice of the ruling.

3^rd Coast Diesels is also ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount of $889.50 for the inspection demand motion and in the amount of $929 for the requests for admissions motion to Plaintiff within 20 days of the notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff to give notice.