Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC04968, Date: 2024-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04968    Hearing Date: June 5, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, June 5, 2024

Case Name:                             Destynie Vanna v. Judy Bunma, Judy S. Bunma Trust and DOES 1-10

Case No.:                                23STLC04968

Motion:                                   Motion To Compel Defendant Judy Bunma’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Destynie Vanna

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

 

 

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Destynie Vanna’s Motion to Compel Defendant Judy Bunma’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED without prejudice.

 

                                                The Court DENIES sanctions without prejudice. 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

            On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff Destynie Vanna filed the Complaint against Judy Bunma, Judy S. Bunma Trust, and Does 1-10 for conversion and trespass to chattel.

 

            On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant Judy S. Bunma by mail. (Bell Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant sought a two-week extension. (Bell Decl. ¶ 3.) The deadline for the discovery request was moved to September 18, 2023. (Bell Decl. ¶ 4.) On October 10,16, and 18, 2023, multiple meet and confer attempts were made to no avail. (Bell Decl. ¶ 5.) As of June 3, 2024, no responses have been received.

 

            On April 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant  Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions.  As of June 3, 2024, Defendant has not filed an opposition.

           

MOVING PARTY POSITION

 

            Plaintiff Destynie Vanna moves for an order compelling Defendant Judy Bunma to serve responses to the Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, which was purportedly served on September 01, 2023.

 

 

 

 

 

OPPOSITION

 

None.

 

REPLY

 

None.

ANALYSIS

 

I.          Motion to Compel Initial

            Plaintiff Destynie Vanna moves for an order compelling Defendant Judy Bunma to serve responses to the Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  

 

A.                                        Legal Standard

 

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

 

1.                  Merits

 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff includes statutes for a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses, however, this is a Motion to Compel Initial.

 

Plaintiff brings this Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, purportedly served on September 1, 2023.  However, Plaintiff’s Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “C” which are to show that Plaintiff served defendant the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are the incorrect documents.  Rather, Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “C” pertain to Requests for Admission, which is not the discovery dispute of the instant motion.  Also, the Declaration of Attorney Bell refers to the Requests for Admission, which were served on August 31, 2023, and attaches Requests for Admission, with corresponding Proofs of Service, as Exhibits “B” and “C”.   Thus, it is unclear whether Defendant was properly served with the Request for Production of Documents. (On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant Judy S. Bunma by mail. (Bell Decl. ¶ 2.)

 

In light of the evidence before the Court, it is unclear whether Plaintiff was served with the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, which is the subject of this motion.  Based thereon, the Court DENIES the instant Motion without prejudice. 

 

2.                  Sanctions

 

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions be awarded in the amount of $1,950.00 against Defendant and Defense Counsel, jointly, and in favor of Plaintiff for misuse of discovery without substantial justification.

 

Since the Motion is DENIED without prejudice, the Court finds that the request for sanctions is moot. 

 

III.       Conclusion

 

            In all, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without prejudice.

 

 The Court DENIES sanctions without prejudice. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice and to attach a copy of the Court's Tentative Ruling , as an exhibit to said notice, as the final order of the Court.