Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01128, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01128    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 March 29, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  22TRCV01128

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Maurice Stephenson v. Leo Ramsey, et al.

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                (1) Plaintiff, Maurice Stephenson

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       (1) Defendant, Leo Ramsey

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       February 24, 2025

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Leo Ramsey’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One

                                                (2) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) CONTINUED to April 18, 2024

                                                (2) Request for Sanctions is also CONTINUED

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿

On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff, Maurice Stephenson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Leo Ramsey, Federal and State Income Tax Services, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Oral Contract; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Intentional Misrepresentation; (5) Intentional Misrepresentation; (6) Unjust Enrichment; (7) Negligence; (8) Declaratory Relief; and (9) Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

Per the moving papers, on August 28, 2023, Plaintiff served his second set of Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant, Leo Ramsey (“Ramsey”). Plaintiff notes that responses were due on October 5, 2023. Plaintiff further asserts that on September 21, 2023, Defense Counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to request an extension of time until October 30, 2023. Plaintiff contends that on November 10, 2023 and October 25, 2023, that Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive any communication from Defendant’s counsel requesting an extension to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two. After not receiving any responses, Plaintiff’s counsel contends he contacted Defense counsel via letter on December 29, 2023 to inquire about the missing responses. However, since then, Plaintiff contends that no communications have been had from Defense Counsel regarding the failure to serve any responses or production to those outstanding discovery requests. As such, Plaintiff now brings this motion to compel initial responses to discovery.

¿ 

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel. On March 18, 2024, counsel for Defendant filed a declaration in response. On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.   

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Motion to Compel

Where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required. 

B.     Discussion

Here, Plaintiff asserts that he served a second round of document discovery on Defendant but never received any responses. Typically, this would be grounds for this motion to order code-compliant, verified responses without objections. However, on March 18, 2024, Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration noting that he would be filing a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, and requesting this Court CONTINUE this motion in order to allow time for Defendants to find counsel, and to hear the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel prior to ruling on this motion. On March 19, 2024, Defense Counsel filed his motion to be relieved as counsel, which is set to be heard on April 18, 2024. In Plaintiff’s reply brief, Plaintiff notes that Plaintiff has no objection to and will not be opposing Defense Counsel’s motions, but requested this Court hear the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel the day of the current hearing on this motion, March 29, 2024. While understandable, the problem with Plaintiff’s request is that defendant has already noticed the withdrawal motion for the April 18 date, and advancing the hearing on that motion for three weeks without notice or agreement of the Plaintiff himself would be a Due Process issue. 

Here, the Court notes that because there is a Motion for Defense Counsel to be relieved, that the Court is inclined to CONTINUE this Motion to Compel to the April 18 date. Defense counsel may present oral argument on why he should not be sanctioned for failure to communicate with Plaintiff’s counsel when not submitting responses by the agreed upon due date. Depending on Defense Counsel’s responses, the Court will address the issue of sanctions on the April 18, 2024 hearing date.

III. CONCLUSION¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿ 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant, Leo Ramsey’s Response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two is CONTINUED to April 18, 2024.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice.