Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 19STCV03462 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 19STCV03462, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 19STCV03462 Hearing Date: February 24, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant Jake Dante’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three

Moving Party: Plaintiff Benjamin Nichols

Resp. Party: Defendants Jake Morris Dante, Cynthia Pett Dante, and Brillstein Entertainment Partners, LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part. The Motion is GRANTED as to RPD 33. The Motion is DENIED as to RPD 44. Defendant shall have 7 days from the issuance of this Order to provide a further, verified response to RPD 33 and to provide a privilege log for RPD 44.

The Court imposes sanctions of $1,050.00 against Defendant and its attorney of record.

BACKGROUND:

On February 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants Jake Morris Dante, Cynthia Pett Dante, and Brillstein Entertainment Partners, LLC to allege the following causes of action related to an automobile accident:

(1) Negligence;

(2) Violation of Vehicle Code Sections 20001 and 20003;

(3) Violation of Vehicle Code Section 23152; and

(4) Negligent entrustment of motor vehicle.

On July 2, 2019, Defendants filed their Answer.

On July 19, 2022, the Court: (1) denied summary adjudication as to the first and fourth causes of action; (2) granted summary adjudication in favor of Defendants as to the second and third causes of action; and (3) granted summary adjudication in favor of Defendants as to punitive damages on the first, second, and third causes of action.

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Defendant Jake Dante’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three. Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Seri Kattan-Wright; (2) Separate Statement; and (3) Proposed Order. Plaintiff’s Motion includes a Request for Sanctions.

On February 9, 2023, Defendants filed their Opposition. Defendant’s Opposition includes a Request for Sanctions.

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I. Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).)¿¿¿

The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further interrogatories and/or a motion to compel further production of documents, unless the Court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

II. Discussion

A. Requests for Production of Documents Propounded

Plaintiff propounded the follow requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) on Defendant Dante:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:

All DOCUMENTS evincing any transfers of ownership of any vehicle involved in the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:

All DOCUMENTS evincing any background searches conducted on Plaintiff.

B. The Motion

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendant Dante to provide further, verified responses to RPDs 33 and 44. (Motion, p. 9:2–4.) Plaintiff argues that there is good cause for this order and that Defendants’ objections regarding relevance, admissibility, vagueness, privilege, and privacy are without merit. (Id. at pp. 5:1–2, 5:21, 6:5, 7:1, 7:11–12.)

Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing: (1) that regarding RPD 33, the request is vague, overbroad, impossible to discern what documents are being sought, and unclear as to their admissibility; and (2) that regarding RPD 44, any material is entitled to protection by the attorney work product doctrine, including the mere disclosure of the existence of such work product. (Opposition, pp. 3:20–23, 4:3–6, 6:6–16.)

Plaintiff reiterates his arguments in his Reply, adding that Defendant Dante must provide a privilege log if any privileged material is being withheld. (Reply, p. 3:21–23.)

Regarding RPD 33, Defendant has only provided objections and no substantive responses. The Court finds that this RPD is not vague, overbroad, inadmissible, or impossible to discern. Rather, RPD 33 is sufficiently narrow and relevant. The Court GRANTS the Motion regarding RPD 33.

Regarding RPD 44, Defendant’s substantive response is that “[a]fter a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, Responding Party is not presently in possession, custody, or control of any non-privileged documents responsive to this request. Discovery and investigation are continuing.” The Court accepts this response and DENIES the Motion as to RPD 44. However, Defendant Dante must provide a privilege log that lists all privileged material that is begin withheld regarding RPD 44. The Court orders Defendant to provide such a privilege log forthwith.

C. Sanctions

The Court has granted the Motion as to RPD 33. Although it has denied the Motion as to RPD 44, the Court has ordered that Defendant supply a privilege log.

Plaintiff requests $3,500 in attorney's fees. The Court awards attorney's fees in the amount of $1,050.00 (3 hours @ $350.00/hour.)

III. Conclusion

The Court imposes sanctions of $1,050.00 against Defendant and its attorney of record.