Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00023933-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 21, 2024

03/22/2024  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  Fraud Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00023933-CU-FR-CTL OQDEH VS SUNROAD AUTO LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Sunroad EC Auto, LLC's motion to compel further responses to requests for production is GRANTED.

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiffs Ali and Jamal Oqdeh to requests for production ('RFP') nos. 1-10, and 12. Defendant argues these requests seek relevant documents, but both Plaintiffs responded with the same boilerplate objections. Moreover, Defendant contends that although Plaintiffs served supplemental responses, they are not code-compliant and Plaintiffs have failed to produce documents in connection with RFP no. 10. The court agrees the supplemental responses are not code compliant.

First, none of the supplemental responses clearly state whether Plaintiffs will comply with each request.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(1).) Second, Plaintiffs responded to RFP nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7-10 by stating they do not possess responsive documents, but did not address whether responsive documents are in their custody or control, (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220), whether the inability to comply (which itself is not specified, but may at least be reasonably inferred) 'is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party,' and whether a 'diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) Plaintiffs responded to RFP nos.

3, 4, 5 and 12 by stating they would produce 'saved copies of Defendant's website content,' (nos. 3 and 5) and 'all communications of which it has retained documentation,' (no. 12), and that the purchase contract is the 'document responsive to this request' (no. 4), but in each response failed to confirm 'that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the product.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) Consequently, Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted. Under the circumstances, sanctions are also warranted. Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendant's meet and confer letter following receipt of the original responses, prompting Defendant to file the motions within the statutory deadline. Plaintiffs then waited another three months to serve non-code-compliant supplemental responses, which primarily indicated they did not possess responsive documents. However, Defendant's request for a sanction of $3,290 for each motion is unreasonable. The two motions, including the replies, are largely duplicative and not overly complicated; the court also declines to award travel time. Instead, the court finds that four hours of total attorney work (plus two $60 filing fees) for both motions is reasonable, as is the proposed Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3060421  5 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  OQDEH VS SUNROAD AUTO LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00023933-CU-FR-CTL rate of $425/hour. Thus, Defendant is awarded a total sanction of $1,820, which is joint and several against Plaintiffs and their attorney of record.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion is granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide verified code-compliant further responses to RFP nos. 1-10, and 12, and pay sanctions of $1,820, no later than April 12, 2024.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3060421  5