Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02268, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02268    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: I

The motions to compel are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.  Sanctions are GRANTED as prayed.

This was originally a UD case, but possession is no longer at issue.  Accordingly, the normal discovery rules apply rather than the accelerated ones applicable to UD actions.

Plaintiff served discovery on October 30, 2023, by email.  That meant that the responses were due on Friday, December 1 (30 days plus 2 court days for the method of service).  However, no responses were served.  According to plaintiff, extensions were granted, but still no responses.  Defendant does not oppose the motion nor does defendant provide any excuse for simply ignoring discovery obligations.

However, the court cannot quite grant the motion in full.  Plaintiff, when compelling responses to an RFP, must establish good cause for the RFP.  That is not a high bar—usually it only means that the discovery is within normal parameters and not obviously objectionable on its face.  Most of the RFP’s fit that bill, but a few do not.  RFP 20-23 are facially improper.  They require defendants to produce images of their drivers’ licenses, passports, official identity cards, and social security cards.  That request goes beyond the normal identification requests in the form interrogatories, which are needed so that a party can find other pertinent information.  (And that sort of discovery is generally not permitted at all in a UD case.)  Rather, it smacks of an attempt to suggest that plaintiff is interested in the immigration status of the defendants, which has no bearing on this case at all.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED except as to RFP 20-23 as to which it is DENIED.  Verified responses without objection (other than privilege) are due in 10 court days.  The documents are due with the responses.  If any documents are withheld on privilege, they will be logged and the log will be detailed enough to itself create a prima facie case for the privilege.  Plaintiff seeks $886.50 in sanctions on one motion and $724 on the other.  That is a fairly small amount.  The court finds that the rates are reasonable and the number of hours is reasonable as well.  Although the motion was not fully granted, the court cannot see that the portion that was denied would have had any material effect on the amount of time needed to draft the moving papers.  Sanctions are imposed upon defendant only, not counsel, and are payable within 30 days.

The court reminds the parties that there is an upcoming trial date.  The court expects full compliance with its FSC and trial rules, which can be found on line.  The failure to comply will result in sanctions against one or both parties, and those sanctions could be evidentiary in nature.