Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV42589, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42589    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff, Juan Carlos Rosas Hernandez, filed this action against defendants Steven R. Espinoza, aka Steven Ramirez Espinoza, Law Offices of Steven R. Espinoza, APC, and SAE & JGE, LLC, asserting causes of action for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability.

On November 4, 2022, Defendant Law Offices of Steven Espinoza, APC (hereinafter “Movant”) filed a motion seeking to compel Plaintiff to provide responses without objections to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. The Court heard the motion on January 20, 2023.  Following the hearing, the Court ordered counsel for Plaintiff to pay $800 in sanctions to counsel for Defendant for failure to produce privilege logs for Requests for Production, Nots. 14, 15, 22, and 28.  The Court also ordered the party asserting the privilege to produce the privilege log.

On March 13, 2023, Movant filed this motion to compel further compliance with the Court’s January 20, 2023 order.  Movant also seeks imposition of issue, evidence, termination and monetary sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to produce the privilege log.  Movant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and their counsel of record.

On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition, arguing sanctions are unwarranted because the privilege log was sent to Movant on March 28, 2023.  Further, counsel for Plaintiff represents that upon realizing the assertion of privilege did not apply to Request No. 22, counsel asked Plaintiff to search for any documents in Plaintiff’s possession that was responsive to Request No. 22, causing delay.

In reply, Movant contends the privilege log is defective and reasserts its request for an order compelling Plaintiff to produce records without objection to Request Nos. 14, 14, 22, and 28.  Movant also requests imposition of additional monetary sanctions.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel for Plaintiff is warranted.  Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to produce the privilege log until Defendant filed this motion.  However, the Court notes that neither party has submitted the privilege log for the Court to review.  Without the privilege log, the Court cannot ascertain whether it is deficient.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES Movant’s motion to compel further compliance to May 3, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

The Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding the sufficiency of the privilege log.  If the matter remains unresolved, the parties are ordered to file a joint separate statement no later than April 20, 2023, identifying in columns: the RFP in full, the assertion of privilege, and (Plaintiff) why the assertion is sufficient and appropriate/(Defendant) why the assertion is inappropriate and insufficient.  If the matter is resolved, Movant is to file a notice of outcome.  If the issue of sanctions is not resolved, the Court will address the issue of sanctions at the continued hearing date. 

Moving party to give notice.

          Dated this 12th day of April 2023