Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2018-00974280, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Platinum Properties Investor Network, Inc. Motion to Deem Platinum in Compliance with the January 31, 2023, Court Order is DENIED.
There is no authority cited which compels this Court to deem Plaintiff in compliance with the January 31, 2023, Document Production Order. Plaintiff asserts it complied with the Order. Defendants ROI Property Group Management, LLC and ROI Property Group 2, LLC (“ROI”) argue that Plaintiff has not. As the propounding party, if ROI believes Plaintiff to be non-compliant with the January 31, 2023, Order then ROI should move to compel. There is nothing before this Court that it can resolve based on the moving papers.
Plaintiff’s request for clarification of the January 31, 2023, Order is GRANTED and clarified as follows:
Regarding ROI Property Group Management, LLC and ROI Property Group 2, LLC’s (ROI) motion to compel Platinum Properties Investor Network, Inc. (Inc.) to comply and produce responsive documents to post judgment request for production, set one, #s 3, 4, 5 and 13, the motion was GRANTED. Inc. was to provide verified responses, without objection, with the responsive 12 categories of documents listed in the Conclusion contained in ROA 666 within 20 days. Sanctions of $2,350 were awarded against Inc.
Regarding ROI Property Group Management, LLC and ROI Property Group 2, LLC’s motion to compel Platinum Properties Investor Network, Inc. to provide responses to ROI’s post judgment interrogatories, set two, and request for production, set two, the motion was GRANTED. Inc. was to provide verified responses, without objection, to the set two interrogatories AND provide verified responses, without objection, to the set two requests for production, with corresponding documents, within 20 days. Sanctions were denied. As there was no court reporter for this 1/30/2023 hearing, and the court has no present recollection as to the details of all oral arguments made, the court’s ruling was made before subsequent briefing was filed on 2/1/2023—ROA 777. On the Court’s own motion, however, within the Court’s inherent authority to reconsider, modify or vacate interim rulings, the Court changes its earlier ruling based upon CCP sections 708.020(b) and 708.030(b). The Court construes the statutory language of “the judgment debtor is not required to respond to any discovery so served” to mean if the subsequent discovery is served within 120 days of earlier responses, the judgment debtor does not have to object to the discovery, but may simply not respond and ignore it. The second set of post judgment discovery was served less than 120 days after the responses to the first set. As a result, Inc. is not required to respond to the post judgment interrogatories, set two, and the post judgment request for production, set two, as they were untimely served pursuant to CCP sections 708.020(b) and 708.030(b) respectively.
Moving party to give notice.