Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 21CHCV00581, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00581    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 10-26-22                                                                                                Trial Date: 4/17/22

Case # 21CHCV00581

MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PRODUCTION OF FURTHER RESPONSES

Motion filed on 9/21/22.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant World Trading 23, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendant requests an order compelling compliance and production of documents and for further responses with documents, by Plaintiff.  Defendant seeks an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel in the amount of $3,560, for attorneys’ fees and costs.  If a reply and appearance are necessary, Defendant states it will request an additional award based on that time.

RULING: GRANTED

            On August 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against defendant World Trading, 23, Inc. (Defendant) and others.  Defendants asked Plaintiff what they were seeking, as there was a dispute as to what may be owed, if anything, but Plaintiff did provide the comprehensive response they indicated they would.  (Wagner Decl. ¶ 2.)  On June 8, 2022, Defendant served numerous sets of discovery, including a request for the production of documents.  On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff sent some information on alleged damages and served responses but no documents at the end of July.  On August 5, 2022, the attorneys had a meet and confer call and came to the agreement that (1) Plaintiff would produce the documents on August 8, 2022; (2) Plaintiff would supplement two special interrogatories; and (3) the parties would meet and confer further on RFP No. 8 and Plaintiff’s counsel would speak with his client and respond.  (Wagner Decl. ¶ 4; Exh. A.)  Defendants did not receive the documents due August 8, 2022.  (Exh. B.)  There was more communication between the parties in which Plaintiff’s counsel asked for clarification about the documents and Defendants warned they would file a motion to compel on September 8, 2022.  (Exh. B.)  Defendants warned Plaintiff again on September 16, 2022, after not receiving any responses to their email and no documents.  On September 21, 2022, Defendant filed this instant motion to compel.  Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition.

            Defendant claims it is entitled to an order compelling production of documents to RFPs numbers 2-5, 7, 9-10, 12, and 15 because Plaintiff failed to produce the documents by the deadline and under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, Defendant is not required to meet and confer prior to bringing this motion to compel (not further).

            The Court agrees and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel production of documents numbers 2-5, 7, 9-10, 12, and 15.

            Defendant requests further responses to RFP number 8 which asked Plaintiff to “Produce ALL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU (including from any of YOUR agents/representatives) and any Defendants.”  (Exh. C.)  Plaintiff objected by stating it was overbroad, burdensome, not relevant to the subject matter, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff on this issue.  (Wagner Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.)  Defendant argues these communications are directly relevant to the case because Plaintiff is claiming Defendants breached their contract as tenants and Defendants are disputing numerous issues, especially relating to the latter portion of the lease and issues that arose from that.  (Mot. p. 5.)  Defendant argues the issues that arose are related to the communications.  (Id.)  Defendant claims it offered to narrow down the scope of the RFP, but Plaintiff ultimately did not respond and failed to produce any documents.  (Id.)

            The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to further responses from Plaintiff for RFP number 8.  Although RFP number 8 is broad, the Court finds the request relevant and given that Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to RFP number 8.

            Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and its attorney in the amount of $3,560.  Defense counsel states his hourly rate is $500 although counsel of his experience in Los Angeles are seeking $750 per hour.  Defense counsel claims he spent over six hours on the motion, meeting/conferring, and preparing the separate statement.  

            The Court GRANTS monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,740.00 for three hours at an hourly rate of $500.00 for preparing the unopposed motion, $180.00 in filing fees, and $60.00 for the IDC reservation fee, to be paid within twenty days of the date of this Order.