Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV06418, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06418    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motions to compel further are DENIED. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

On 2/18/2022, Plaintiff Pam Krebs (Plaintiff) filed suit against Dorothy St. Homeowners Association (Defendant or Association), alleging: (1) breach of governing documents; (2) breach of fiduciary duties; (3) breach of fiduciary duties; (4) nuisance; (5) negligence; (6) trespass; (7) violation of the Davis-Stirling Act; (8) violation of the Davis-Stirling Act; and (9) declaratory relief.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from the Association to her Requests for Production (RFPs), Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission (RFAs).

Discussion

The Court held an IDC in this matter on 11/23/2022. The Association agreed to review its discovery responses and objections, and, if any documents had been withheld on the basis of objection and/or privilege, to provide either supplemental responses or a privilege log.

Plaintiff contends that the Association has now failed to comply with its representations: “But the HOA didn’t serve any new discovery responses. It didn’t remove the objections. It didn’t serve any new verification. It didn’t sign the letter under the penalty of perjury. In other words, the HOA’s initial Set One discovery responses are still operative.” (Motion, 6: 2-4.)

In opposition, the Association contends that it did, as promised, conduct a substantive review of its responses and document production. However, following such a review, the Association found no documents or information had been withheld, and timely confirmed the same to Plaintiff via written letter. (Opp., 3: 13-14.)

After review, the Court agrees with the Association. The Association was obligated to review its responses and determine whether or not documents were being withheld as a result of privilege or objection. If so, the Association was required to either supplement its responses or provide a privilege log. Given the Association’s review confirming that no privileged information or documents were withheld, there is nothing further to supplement or verify. As such, there are no further responses for the Court to compel, as the existing responses, which were verified under penalty of perjury, remain conclusive and complete in their provision of information and documents.

Moreover, while Plaintiff contends the attorney-client privilege objection is without merit or “too general,” this ignores that fact that the Association has stated it is not withholding documents on this basis. As such, the Court has nothing further to compel the Association to produce even if it were to conclude that the objection is too general or without merit. Plaintiff does not argue otherwise that the discovery is not substantially code-compliant. (CCP §§ 2030.300; 2031.310; 2033.290.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to compel further are denied. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  February     , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.