Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 24NWCV00022, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV00022, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV00022 Hearing Date: May 14, 2024 Dept: C

Zhoie Perez vs Sandra Ngayan, et al.

Case No.: 24NWCV00022

Hearing Date: May 14, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Zhoie Perez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is DENIED.

Defendant to give notice.

Background

This action was filed on January 3, 2024 by Plaintiff Zhoie Perez (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants Sandra Ngayan and Francisco Alejandro Ngayan (“Defendants”). On March 13, 2024, a First Amended Complaint was filed alleging causes of action for: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) negligence; (3) violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act; (4) violations of the Bane Civil Rights Act; (5) Violations of the Unruh Act; and (6) false imprisonment.

Plaintiff now files the instant motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents.

Legal Standard

A party may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

The party who propounded the discovery request may bring a motion to compel and the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for production of documents or interrogatories, unless the court 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); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Plaintiff, representing herself pro per, avers that on January 5, 2024, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents on the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department Body Camera Unit. (Perez Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff contends that in response the unit stated it would not be releasing the items.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has presented no evidence that this was the position adopted by the Sheriff’s Department. Moreover, Defendant argues Plaintiff cannot compel the production of documents through a motion that was not served upon the entity from which the documents are sought.

The Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has brought the motion against the wrong entity. Defendants are not representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Even if the Court were to grant the instant motion, it is likely that Defendant would be unable to produce the documents sought.

Accordingly, Plaintiff motion is DENIED.

Sanctions

Legal Standard

Plaintiff’s request for Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $720.00 in connection with the cost of filing this motion. The motion is denied and therefore the sanctions are moot. However, the Court also notes that a party litigating in propria person “may not be awarded monetary discovery sanctions based on compensation for time and effort expended as a result of a misuse of the discovery process.” (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1180-1181.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.