Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01241507, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Club Speed, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the compliance of Defendant K1 Speed, Inc. (“Defendant”) with Defendant’s previous agreement to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One.  Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,560.00.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 states that if a party filing a response to a demand for inspection fails to permit the inspection in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the propounding party may move for an order compelling compliance.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a).)  This section also states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion . . . 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., § 2031.320(b).).

Defendant argues that the Motion is procedurally defective because it was not filed with an accompanying separate statement.  California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires a separate statement for any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request, and lists the following motions as those that require a separate statement: (1)  to compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) to compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things; (4) to compel answers at a deposition; (5) to compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition; (6) for medical examination over objection; and (7) for issue or evidentiary sanctions.

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion does not concern the specific content of Defendant’s responses, as Plaintiff is not concerned with the substance of Defendant’s responses.  Rather, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s compliance with its agreement to produce responsive documents.  The requested production would not be at a deposition and Plaintiff does not seek further responses to its Requests for Production.  Thus, the Court finds that no separate statement is required.

Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production, Set One, on February 9, 2022.  (Declaration of Gerard M. Mooney, ¶ 2.)  In responses served on March 15, 2022, Defendant stated it would produce documents responsive to Request No. 38.  (Id., Ex. 2 at p. 29.)  Defendant also responded by stating it would meet and confer with Plaintiff to narrow the scope of writings to be produced in response to numerous Requests.  (See id., Ex. 2.)  The parties then exchanged meet and confer correspondence regarding Defendant’s responses from April to May 2022.  (Id., Exs. 3-5.) 

Defendant served Amended Responses on June 7, 2022 stating it would produce responsive documents to Request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6-16, 20, 24- 27, 29-34, 37, and 38.  (Id., Ex. 7.)  The cover letter for Defendant’s Amended Responses stated that Defendant would produce documents well in advance of a deposition then-set for July 14.  (Id., Ex. 8.)  On June 16, 2022, counsel for Defendant stated documents would be produced by the following Friday or sooner.  (Id., Ex. 6.)  On June 27, 2022, counsel stated his statement regarding production was based on information that did not materialize as he anticipated and his new estimate for document production would be July 1.  (Ibid.)  By the time the instant Motion was filed on June 30, 2022, Defendant still had not produced any documents.  (Id., ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff contends Defendant should be compelled to produce the documents it has promised to produce.  Plaintiff states it has waited nearly four months for production and Defendant should not be permitted to continue to avoid its basic discovery obligations.

Defendant argues that it has been working diligently in good faith to produce responsive documents and the Motion should be denied because it has not failed or refused to produce.  Its search yielded 34,679 unique documents for review and Defendant is going through these documents as quickly as possible.  (Declaration of Ben West, ¶¶ 9-10.)  Defendant produced an initial set of responsive documents, totaling 263 pages, on July 11, 2022.  (Id., ¶ 5.)  Counsel estimates that Defendant will need at least an additional 45 days to review the documents.  (Id., ¶ 11.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion was filed on June 30, 2022.  Since then, in the two months after this Motion was filed and almost three months after Defendant served its Amended Responses, Defendant has only produced 263 pages of documents.  This belies Defendant’s assertion that it has been working diligently to produce responsive documents as quickly as possible.  Defendant has not provided any information showing that the document search and review is particularly difficult or time-consuming.  Thus, the Court finds Defendant’s delay in production to be unwarranted and, as a result, that Defendant has failed to permit the inspection of documents in accordance with its statement of compliance.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.  Defendant is ORDERED to produce all non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, and control responsive to Request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6-16, 20, 24- 27, 29-34, 37, and 38, within 30 days of this Order.

The Court finds no substantial justification for Defendant’s delay in producing documents and that monetary sanctions against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff are warranted here.  The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for $2,560.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant.

Plaintiff to give notice.