Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV27583, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27583    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 19, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Request for Sanctions Against Defendant and/or his Counsel of Record in the Amount of $1,261.65

Moving Party: Plaintiff Pacific Walnut Center

Responding Party: Joseph Esfandi

T/R:   PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

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

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. . .  [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. . . .  The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (CCP §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (CCP §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).)

          Plaintiff Pacific Walnut Center moves to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Joseph Esfandi. Plaintiff served the subject discovery by email and mail on December 19, 2023. (Kohan Decl. ¶ 3.) On December 20, 2023, Defense counsel replied to the email stating that he was Defendant’s new attorney. (Id. ¶ 3.) Responses were due on January 18, 2024. (Linzer Decl. ¶ 3.) Throughout the month of January of 2023 and into February of 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in settlement discussions through their counsel. (Id.) During this time, both counsel were busy with professional and personal obligations. As of the filing of the reply, Plaintiff has not received responses. (Id. at ¶ 5.) The motion is GRANTED.

          The Court does not find sanctions warranted here. Defendant represents that the parties were in settlement discussions through their counsel. (Linzer Decl. ¶ 3.) Imposition of sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances; Defendant acted with justification in not responding during that time. The request for sanctions is DENIED.