Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV00516, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: 23SMCV00516    Hearing Date: November 26, 2024    Dept: I

The motion for sanctions is DENIED.  Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against defendant Shah Solati, Inc.  Before the court is a motion for sanctions.  It is not opposed.  However, although the motion’s caption is for sanctions, it is really a motion to compel further responses to a request for production of documents.  Given that, the court cannot grant the motion because the separate statement does not comply with Rule 3.1345(c) in that it does not contain the whole RFP.

That said, though, the responses are troubling.  Defendant knows that plaintiff is seeking evidence to support the alter ego allegation.  Due to defendant’s past failure to engage in discovery in good faith, plaintiff is now using more extreme requests.  Had the motion been proper such that the court had the power to rule on it, the court might well have granted the motion; the court is unpersuaded by the objections or positions.  Defendants’ demeanor in this case has been more of a litigation tactic and appears to be one designed to take advantage of plaintiff’s status as a self-represented litigant.  Fortunately for the defense, even a self-represented litigant must follow the rules.  However, the court can foresee a time where plaintiff will have done this properly.  When that occurs, the court will have little sympathy for an argument by the defense that the discovery is too intrusive, including a request for financial records.  Defendant states that it served supplemental responses last week.  That is well and good, but a bit late.  The court will see if plaintiff brings a motion to compel further.