Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV01401, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01401    Hearing Date: June 7, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Bowmont Holdings LLC, et al., v. CAS Construction, et al.

CASE NO.:                21SMCV01401

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Compliance/Production

HEARING DATE:   6/7/2024

Legal Standard

If a party permits inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents in response to a request for production of documents, but 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. (CCP § 2031.320(a).) The court “shall” impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, 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. (CCP § 2031.320(b).)

ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff Haig Tacorian moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Defendant City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“DWP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to comply and produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Sets One) Nos. 21-23, 28-32, and 34-56 within 10 days. (CCP § 2031.320.)

On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff propounded each Defedant certain Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), which consisted of 56 requests. (Cowles Decl.,, Exs. A, B.) On March 15, 2024, following meet and confer efforts, Defendants provided supplemental responses, agreeing to allow inspection of the documents responsive to Request Nos. 21-23, 28-32, and 34-56. (Id., Exs. G, H.) There is no dispute that Defendants agreed to provide the responsive documents. Plaintiff met and conferred regarding the outstanding production, but received no response. (Id., ¶¶ 8-9.) As of April 24, 2024, Defendants have not produced a single responsive document. (Id., ¶ 9.)

Defendants do not provide a reason why compliance with their statement should not be compelled. They assert that this motion fails to meet the requirements of a motion to compel further responses. However, this is not such a motion. Defendants also raise issues regarding the facts of the underlying dispute, which are not relevant to this motion to compel compliance. Defendants admit that they are in the process of providing documents “as quickly as it can given staffing and budgetary limitations” at the City. With this statement, they admit that they owe production. Moreover, Defendants neither cite any evidence of their staffing issues or budget, nor any authority which shows that their staffing and budget issues justify their failure to comply with their statement of compliance. For instance, Defendants do not show that production would be overly burdensome or oppressive. Defendants also do not explain their reasonable efforts to comply in order to justify their rate of production. As such, there is no reason to deny the motion. For the same reasons, Defendants are also subject to sanctions.

Accordingly, the motions to compel compliance are GRANTED. Production must be completed within 15 days of this order.

Plaintiff request $9,270.00 in sanctions against Defendants. As a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with their discovery obligations, Counsel claims 9 hours preparing the two motions to compel and the supporting papers ($475.00 x 9 = $4,275.00), 1.5 hours to review and revise the moving papers ($595.00 x 1.5 = $892.50), an anticipated 3 hours to review any oppositions and to prepare replies ($475.00 x 3 = $1,425.00), an anticipated 4.5 hours to prepare for the hearing and to attend the hearing in Santa Monica ($595.00 x 4.5 = $2,677.50). (Cowles Decl., ¶ 11.) Considering this record, the court is not inclined to grant the full sanctions request. The motions are relatively routine motions to compel compliance. The court finds that a reasonable fee in this instance would be $4,217.50, accounting for 7 hours of attorney time at $475 per hour, and 1.5 hours of attorney time at $595 per hour, plus $120.00 in costs. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendants the City of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,337.50. Sanctions are to be paid within 30 days.