Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV25211, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV25211    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 61

ALLIED PUBLIC ADJUSTERS, INC. vs BERJ NEIL ALIKSANIAN, et al.

Tentative

Defendants Berj Neil Aliksanian Motion to Compel Compliance with Statements of Compliance from Plaintiff Allied Public Adjusting, Inc. is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is directed to provide verifications for its responses, and is to produce an identification of documents in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280, within 20 days. No sanctions are awarded.

Moving party to give notice.

Analysis

I. MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

Defendants Berj Neil Aliksanian and Precise Public Adjusting, Inc. (Defendants) move to compel Plaintiff Allied Public Adjusters, Inc. (Plaintiff) to comply with statements of compliance provided in response to requests for production which were served on April 28, 2023. (Ramirez Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff only served responsive documents after inquiries from Defendants on September 13, 2024. (Ramirez Decl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff’s responses were served without verifications, and Plaintiff’s documents were served without categorization by the request to which they were responsive. (Ramirez Decl. ¶¶ 11, 18.) Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s document production included largely irrelevant documents not responsive to the requests. (Ramirez Decl. ¶ 20.)

Plaintiff in opposition makes no mention of the lack of verification accompanying his responses, and does not address the failure to identify which documents are responsive to which request. Discovery responses without verifications are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635–36.) And “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280, subd. (a).) Plaintiff does not dispute that no verifications, or identification of documents has been provided. This court may direct that such things be produced.

But Defendants have identified no basis to conclude that any aspect of the production is incomplete. As Plaintiff notes in opposition, Defendants’ motion does not provide or identify the requests upon which the motion is based, which means the court has no basis to conclude that the production has not been in accordance with statements of compliance. (Opposition at p. 4.)1

Thus the motion is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is directed to provide verifications for its responses, and is to produce an identification of documents in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280. Although both parties request sanctions, no sanctions are awarded, as only partial relief has been awarded here.