Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV10144, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

This is a landlord-tenant dispute. On February 11, 2025, plaintiff Sugeid Navarro filed this motion to compel defendant James Morales’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two. Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant.

If a party to whom inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) ¿ Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿¿¿

A party moving to compel discovery responses under these statutory provisions is not required to meet and confer prior to filing the motion.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).); see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411 [citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 for the proposition that “meet and confer” requirement “did not apply when propounding party sought order compelling responses to interrogatories and sanctions for responding party's failure to respond ‘within the statutorily permitted time’”].)¿¿¿¿¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)¿¿¿¿¿

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.¿¿¿¿

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Request for Production of Documents. ¿¿

It is undisputed that Plaintiff properly served Defendant with production requests on November 27, 2024.¿ Defendant requested an extension, which Plaintiff granted. However, to date, Defendant has not served responses. ¿ (See Woocher Decl., ¶¶ 3-7.) Accordingly, all objections to the production requests are waived.¿ Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses to the production requests.

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant.¿ Given the court’s ruling, sanctions are warranted.¿ Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Reyes in the amount of $675, consisting of one and a half hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED. Defendant James Morales is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, within 30 days of this order.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant James Morales is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $675 to Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, within 30 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court