Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV24702, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24702    Hearing Date: May 13, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:               Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions

Moving Party:         Plaintiff Joshua Shy

Resp. Party:           Defendant Bernice Chavis

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied as MOOT.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $1,375.00 against Defendant and defense counsel, jointly and severally.

BACKGROUND:

        This is an action for breach of lease. On October 10, 2023, plaintiffs Joshua Shy, T’Naiya Armstrongm T’Leah Shy, Uriah Shy and Uzziah Shy filed the operative complaint against Bernice Chavis, as an individual and as trustee of the Chavis Family Trust, and Does 1-15 alleging seven causes of action for 1) Breach of Implied Warranty of

Habitability; 2) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Use & Enjoyment; 3) Negligence; 4) Premises Liability; 5) Violation of California Civil Code §1942.4; 6) Nuisance, and 7) Tenant Harassment (LAMC § 45.33 et seq.). Plaintiffs allege that defendant landlords failed to maintain the property that defendants leased to plaintiffs in a habitable condition.

        On April 11, 2024, plaintiff Joshua Shy (“Plaintiff”) filed motions to compel Bernice Chavis (“Defendant”) to produce documents in compliance with Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant filed oppositions on April 29. Plaintiff replied on May 1, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

A.  Legal Standard

Before bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party is required to make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and must submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310(b)(2), 2030.300(b), 2033.290(b).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.) However, a discovery motion need not be denied automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to meet and confer in good faith. (See Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.) 

Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request shall be accompanied by a separate statement providing all information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses at issue. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a), (c).) “Failure to include the separate statement required by CRC 3.1345 is ground for denial of [the] motion.” (Edmon & Karnow, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) 8:1151.1.) 

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).)¿“To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party to show both: [¶] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and [¶] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) [Citations.] [¶] The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection.¿But it is not essential in every case.” (Edmon & Karnow, California Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 8:1495.6.)¿“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]¿Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation]¿These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) 

“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to interrogatories or deposition questions).” (Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 8:1496.)¿  

B.  Discussion

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed two nearly identical motions to compel further responses, one addressing Defendant Bernice Chavis individually, the other addressing her in her capacity as trustee. This Court treats a party sued individually and as trustee as the same person.

1.  Meet and Confer

Plaintiff sent a meet and confer email on April 4, 2024, one minute after Defendant’s email restating her initial responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One. Plaintiff’s meet and confer email points out defects in Defendant’s responses (including that defense counsel mischaracterized his client as the plaintiff in this case, rather than the defendant) and requests updated responses. (Motion, Naudi Decl., ¶ 7, Exhibit E; Opposition, Monadjemi Decl., ¶ 4, Exhibit B.) The Court finds that the meet and confer requirement is met.

2.  Separate Statement

Plaintiff failed to provide a separate statement to his motions, as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345.

3.  Merits

Plaintiff admits that Defendant served supplemental responses on April 12, 2024, one day after this motion was filed, rendering the motion MOOT. (Reply, 2:2-4; Naudi Decl., ¶2.)

4.  Sanctions

Plaintiff contends that sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s supplemental responses contradict her initial responses. Whereas Defendant initially responded that she will “comply with the request” and “produce all responsive documents” within her “possession, custody, or control” to all 47 of Plaintiff’s requests (Motion, Naudi Decl., ¶ 4; Exhibit C), Defendant’s supplemental responses to 43 of the 47 requests were changed to “responding party is unable to comply with this demand, since after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry such demanded documents have never been in the possession, custody or control of this responding party.” (Reply, 2:14-16.) Plaintiff contends Defendant did this to avoid having to produce documents that she verified that she would.

Plaintiff also contends that this motion was necessary because Defendant finally produced color photographs of the property in question after this motion was filed. (Reply, Naudi Decl., ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)

Lastly, Plaintiff contends that Defendant refused to compromise. After Defendant provided supplemental responses but before Defendant filed her opposition, Plaintiff offered to accept one-half of the sanctions requested in exchange for taking this motion off calendar. Defendant rejected this offer. (Reply, Naudi Decl., Exhibit C.)

Other than citing the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant’s opposition does not address the issue of sanctions.  (See Opposition, p. 9:21 – p. 10:15.)  In particular, Defendant’s oppositions do not address the amount of sanctions that are reasonable.

The Court finds that sanctions are appropriate in this case.  Plaintiff requests sanctions of $1,650.00 for three hours of work at a rate of $550.00/hour against Defendant and defense counsel, jointly and severally. This includes one hour for attending the hearing on this motion.  (Naudi Declaration, ¶ 10.) Since Plaintiff’s counsel can attend the hearing remotely via L.A. Court Connect, the Court will award sanctions in the amount of $1,375.00  (2½ hours of work at $550.00/hour.)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in part.