Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV34192, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34192    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 24, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Andrew Elrod, et al.

Responding Party: Defendant 974 Gramercy LLC, Carson Gramercy, LLC, K3 Holdings, LLC and Alpine Property Management, Inc.

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY WITHIN 20 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,260.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, from Defendant. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant has refused to produce documents that Plaintiffs’ counsel knows exist from a prior litigation between the parties.

This is a landlord-tenant action. The parties previously litigated an unlawful detainer action in which documents were produced pursuant to a protective order. Those documents included communications between Defendants’ agents and officers wherein Defendants identified Plaintiff Andrew Elrod as a leader of the tenant union, extensively tracked the membership and activity of the union, and discussed tactics for undermining and retaliating against the union. Plaintiffs assert that these documents were destroyed by Plaintiffs’ counsel after the litigation in accordance with the protective order in the unlawful detainer action. Plaintiffs represents that Defendant now refuses to produce these same documents in this action.

In opposition, Defendants assert they should not have to produce documents that they previously produced. Defendants also state that Plaintiff has refused to stipulate to a protective order. Defendants believe Plaintiffs intend to make the documents public.

The documents sought are relevant to Plaintiffs’ action and discoverable. The Court will order further response, subject to the parties agreeing to or, if necessary, the Court ordering, a protective order. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer on a stipulated protective order.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further is GRANTED. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $7,260.