Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV01257, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01257    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Buckingham Heights Business Park v. Azure Construction Inc.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV01257

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Compliance/Production

HEARING DATE:   2/26/2025

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 Buckingham Heights Business Park moves to compel compliance with Defendant’s written responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).  Plaintiff served the subject discovery upon Defendant on June 7, 2024, with responses provided on July 22, 2024. Defendant’s responses were either an agreement to produce documents (Request No. 1) or objections coupled with an agreement to produce documents (the rest of the requests). Despite these agreements, no documents were produced on the date called for in the requests for production. (Cohen Decl., ¶¶2-3.) Defendant’s counsel admits that they have failed to comply with the statement of compliance but intend to comply prior to the hearing. (Spitzer Decl.) As of this date, Defendant does not show a compliant production and the motion is not moot.

In a tardy opposition, Defendant requests leniency on sanctions, as counsel was out of the country on a volunteer mission from December 28, 2024, to January 8, 2025. Following counsel’s return, the recent wildfires required counsel to evacuate until January 18, 2025, and negatively impacted his practice. (Spitzer Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.) While the court would certainly be lenient if counsel’s failure to respond to the subject discovery was a result of the recent wildfires, counsel does not explain the failure to produce prior to December 28. 2024. Thus, Defense counsel’s unexcused error necessitated this motion.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED (if not mooted by the time of the hearing). Mandatory sanctions are imposed in the reasonable, noticed amount of $1,245.00 against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, and payable within 30 days.