Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC06375, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC06375 Hearing Date: February 22, 2024 Dept: 26
Howard v. Veros Credit, LLC, et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(CCP §§ 2031.310; 2033.290)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Veros Credit, LLC’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Admission, Set One, and Request for Sanction is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF ANDREA HOWARD IS TO SERVE FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $700.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. SANCTIONS STAYED TWENTY DAYS AND MAY BE PERMANENTLY STAYED UPON DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE
Defendant Veros Credit, LLC’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanction is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Andrea Howard (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract against Defendant Veros Credit, LLC (“Defendant”) on October 4, 2023. Defendant filed an answer on November 9, 2023. On January 12, 2024, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One, and Request for Sanctions. No opposition has been filed to date.
Discussion
Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c); § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The 45-day deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409.) Following service of Plaintiff’s discovery responses on December 1, 2023, Defendant timely filed the instant Motions on January 12, 2024. (Motions, Naples Decl., ¶3 and Exh. 2.)
Also, the Motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b)(2).) The supporting declarations demonstrate an effort by defense counsel to obtain further responses from Plaintiff after service of the original responses. (Motions, Naples Decl., ¶4 and Exh. 3.) The meet and confer requirement, therefore, is satisfied.
Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Alternatively, “the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b)(2).) The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, is accompanied by a separate statement. (Separate Statement, filed 01/12/24.) However, the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is not. Nor does the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, demonstrate why Plaintiff’s responses are insufficient under the moving statute. (Motion, p. 5:16-28.) The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, therefore, is denied.
On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant moves to compel further responses to Request for Admissions, Nos. 1-7, which ask Plaintiff to admit statements about the subject contract and their contact information. (Separate Statement, p. 3.) Plaintiff’s responses are not verified and do not answer the substance of the requests, nor assert objections, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210. Instead, the responses confusingly state that Plaintiff accepts an unknown offer to produce communications between the parties. The Motion demonstrates that Plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, are incomplete. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s further responses. Sanctions are appropriate and have been properly noticed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) However, the amount sought is excessive. Under a lodestar calculation, Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $700.00 based on two hours of attorney time billed at $320.00, plus $60.00 in costs. (Motion, Naples Decl., ¶7.)
Conclusion
Defendant Veros Credit, LLC’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Admission, Set One, and Request for Sanction is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF ANDREA HOWARD IS TO SERVE FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $700.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Defendant Veros Credit, LLC’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanction is DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.