Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV33091, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33091    Hearing Date: December 16, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING 

MOTION 

Plaintiff Ricky Bradford (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant S&J Towing Service (“Defendant”) to provide documents in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set One) (“RPD”).  Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,500 against Defendant on the grounds that Defendant did not act with substantial justification in refusing to adequately respond to discovery. Defendant has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS 

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, “[i]f a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling  . . .  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.”  The Court notes that Plaintiff relies upon Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, but that reliance is misplaced.  Notwithstanding, the Court finds that the aim of motion is the production of the responsive documents as evident by the points set forth therein. 

Here, on October 20, 2021, Plaintiff served by mail the subject RPD on Defendant.  (Exhibit 1.)  Defendant served verified responses to the RPD on March 3, 2022.  (Exhibit 2.)  All of Defendant’s responses to the RPD (Nos. 1- 25) state: “All documents in the possession, custody and/or control will be provided as soon as possible.”  At the time of filing the motion, Plaintiff has not received the responsive documents.  (Declaration of Vahan Mikayelyan, ¶ 26.) 

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Defendant’s failure to produce the responsive documents to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d),  2031.320, subd. (b).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $750, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $250 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, and orders Defendant to produce all documents in its possession, custody and control that are responsive to the RPD (Nos. 1 – 25), within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Further, the Court orders Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $750 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.