Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2021-01232723, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Discovery

Defendants AMH, LLC’s and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, are taken OFF CALENDAR as moot.

The court ORDERS that Plaintiff Angela Cleavenger pay to Defendants AMH, LLC and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. sanctions in the amount of $840 (4 hours x $195 per hour in reasonable attorney’s fees and $60 in motion filing fees) within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Defendants AMH, LLC and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. move for further responses to their Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, propounded on Plaintiff Angela Cleavenger.

Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Production

A party may move for an order compelling further responses to requests for the production of documents on the grounds that: (1) a statement of compliance with the request is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

On April 17, 2023, while this motion was pending and shortly before Plaintiff’s opposition to these motions were due, Plaintiff served further verified responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. (See Opp’n, Exh. E.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not raised any issues with respect to the further responses.

The motion to compel is therefore moot because Defendants have obtained the relief requested – further responses to their requests for production of documents. Even if the further responses are deficient, Defendants must file an additional motion to compel outlining why the further responses are not code compliant.

Sanctions

The Civil Procedure Code requires the court to impose monetary sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(a) further provides that “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).

If the results of the motion to compel are mixed, the trial court has the discretion to apportion sanctions or award no sanctions on any terms as may be just. (See Mattco Valley Forge v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1437.)

Here, the fact that Plaintiff eventually provided further responses shows that this motion to compel could have been avoided. While Plaintiff provided some justification for the delay in providing further responses, Plaintiff’s justification does not explain why it took more than 5 months after the initial deadline had passed for Plaintiff to serve responses that included more than a single objection to each production request.

Therefore, the court will award sanctions for some of Defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees in bringing this motion to compel.

Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.