Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV28862, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV28862, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28862 Hearing Date: April 2, 2025 Dept: 61

HUGE USA, INC. vs FASHION NOVA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Tentative

Defendant Fashion Nova, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production from Plaintiff Huge USA, Inc. is DENIED. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant in the amount of $1,685.00, payable within 60 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Analysis

I. MOTION TO COMPEL & DEEM ADMITTED

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Defendant Fashion Nova, Inc. (Defendant) moves to compel responses to requests for production No. 8, 10, 12, 13, 16–18, 24, 26, 27, 39, 42 43, 46, and 51, served upon Plaintiff Huge USA, Inc. (Plaintiff). Defendant served requests for production on July 3, 2024, and responses and objections were served on August 6, 2024, while supplemental responses were served on January 28, 2025. (Finberg Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, 10.) Plaintiff contends that the documents identified as responsive to certain requests were not responsive, or else the responses indicated that the production was improperly conditioned upon the conducting of a future investigation. (Opposition at pp. 4–13.)

Defendant’s motion fails for a number of reasons. First, although captioned and reserved as a motion to compel — properly brought where a party “fails to serve a timely response” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300) — the motion is in actual form a dual motion to compel further for incomplete or evasive responses (Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310) and one for failure to produce responsive documents following the provision of a statement of compliance. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320.)

The motion is defective as one to compel further responses, because it includes no separate statement indicating the requests at issue or the reasons a further response is required. (CRC Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Additionally, the motion includes no description of meet and confer efforts that took place in regard to the sufficiency of the responses that were served on January 28, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

The motion also fails as one to compel compliance under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.320, because it is supported by no evidence. Defendant does not provide the court with either the requests or the responses with which Defendant takes issue, or those relevant portions of the document production. The court thus has no basis to assess the completeness of Plaintiff’s responses or to afford the requested relief.

The motion is therefore DENIED.

I. SANCTIONS

The prevailing party on a motion to compel is generally entitled to monetary sanctions, 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. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) Sanctions are also mandatory against a party whose failure to serve responses to requests for admission makes the motion necessary. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff seeks $1,835.00 in sanctions based on one hour of attorney work at $495 per hour, two hours of attorney work at $295 per hour, and five hours of law clerk work at $150 per hour. (Rios Decl. ¶ 9.) Sanctions are awarded against Defendant in the reduced amount of $1,685.00.