SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Defendant Saint Christopher Catholic Church and The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as "Archdiocese of Los Angeles") (“Defendant”) propounded on plaintiff Katherine Brown (“Plaintiff”) request for production of documents (“RPDs), set two, on September 26, 2023. (Grannis Decl. ¶ 6.) After having granted an extension, and receiving no response, Plaintiff then served unverified responses. Plaintiff agreed to comply and produce documents in response to Requests Nos. 27 to 30 contained in RPDs, set two, but no documents have yet to be produced. Defense counsel wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting the documents, and on January 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel provided verification. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel represented he was in the process of obtaining copies of the documents from storage. The parties conferred regarding the outstanding production of documents, but Defendant has not received any documents from Plaintiff to date. Defendant therefore seeks to compel Plaintiff’s compliance to produce documents, and to pay monetary sanctions. 

Any opposition was due on or before April 25, 2024. No opposition has been filed. 

 

 

II. MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE 

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 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.” (CCP §2031.320.) 

Here, Defendant’s RPDs, set two, requests nos. 27 to 30, requested documents related to worker’s compensation claims and any workplace/occupational injury suffered by Plaintiff. (Exh. 3.) Plaintiff responded in the same manner as to these requests, that: “Plaintiff will provide documents in her and her attorney’s possession responsive to this request.” (Exh. 6.) On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel enclosed within a letter Plaintiff’s verifications to her responses, and further provided that Plaintiff’s Workers’ Compensation Files have been requested from storage. (Exh 8.) On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel email provides that he has in his position the workers’ compensation case from storage, and that he is in the process of going through it. (Exh. 10.) Further, Plaintiff’s counsel provided on multiple occasions that he would agree to stipulate to extend any time for Defendant to bring a motion to compel. (Exhs. 10-12.).  

The evidence demonstrates that the parties were aware of the specific documents responsive to Defendant’s requests contained in RPDs, set two, and that Plaintiff’s counsel had in his possession the documents that were to be produced. There is no evidence that Plaintiff has produced any of the documents to date, and Plaintiff has not opposed this motion demonstrating otherwise. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (CRC, rule 8.54.)  

Therefore, because the evidence shows Plaintiff was properly served with discovery requests, and failed to produce any documents pursuant to the agreement that all documents in Plaintiff’s attorney’s possession would be provided, the motion is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve the requested documents responsive to Defendant’s RPDs, set two. (CCP § § 2031.320(c).)  

 

III. SANCTIONS 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response, unless a court makes certain findings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.32(b).)¿Plaintiff did not file any opposition. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition was filed, pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,226.76 for the motion to compel compliance.    

A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.) Defendant is awarded $325 in attorney’s fees for the motion, and one motion filing fee of $60 as costs. 

Sanctions are and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally. Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $385, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: