Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00044717-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 01, 2024

02/02/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00044717-CU-PO-CTL AHOOGHALANDAR VS WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 01/04/2024

Defendant Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Markets, Inc.'s motion to compel Plaintiff Sahar Ahooghalandar's to produce documents in connection with her statement of compliance is GRANTED.

As of February 1, 2024, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant's motion. Pursuant to this court's local rules, this failure to respond will be regarded as a concession that Defendant's motion has merit. (See San Diego Superior Court Local Rule 2.1.19, subd. (B).) However, it cannot be deemed an admission that sanctions should be awarded. (CRC 3.1348, subd. (b).) A party who has received a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 may respond with '[a] statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . . .' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(1).) If the party that responded with such a compliance statement 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.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiff included a statement of compliance in her responses to Defendant's requests for production nos. 1-2, 4-10, 12, 19, and 23-24. Plaintiff served her responses in March 2023, but has yet to produce any documents to comply with her statement nearly a year later. This is a violation of her discovery obligations. Therefore, Plaintiff will be compelled to comply with her statement of compliance by producing the responsive documents.

Sanctions are also warranted; Plaintiff has not failed to establish that withholding production of the documents for nearly a year was with substantial justification. However, Defendant's request for $5,510 in sanctions is excessive. Although the court agrees the proposed hourly rate of $250 is reasonable, the purported hours expended in connection with the motion (21.7) are not. The thrust of the motion is quite simple; Plaintiff did not produce documents despite stating she would. As such, the court will award sanctions based on four hours to prepare the motion and appear for the hearing, plus $60 for the filing fee, totaling $1,060.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to comply with her statement of compliance in connection with RFP nos. 1-2, 4-10, 12, 19, and 23-24 by producing the responsive documents, and to pay sanctions totaling $1,060, no later than February 16, 2024.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3079316  17 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  AHOOGHALANDAR VS WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA INC  37-2022-00044717-CU-PO-CTL Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3079316  17