Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02466, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV02466    Hearing Date: September 20, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 September 20, 2023

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV02466

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Evelyn J. Ko v. Luke Visser, et al.

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants, Visser, et al.

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff, Evelyn J. Ko.

TRIAL DATE:                        October 16, 2023

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

                                                (2) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED

                                                (2) Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the lowered amount of $1,000, payable within 30 days

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff, Evelyn J. Ko (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer against Luke Koster Visser, et al.

Defendant, Luke Visser, notes that on August 14, 2023, he propounded discovery to Plaintiff, and that the responses were provided on August 23, 2023. Visser notes that counsel for Defendant sent a meet and confer correspondence the same day, and asked for further responses by August 30, 2023. Defendant Visser notes that his counsel followed up the correspondence with several phone calls to Plaintiff’s counsel’s office, but was unable to discuss the deficiencies with opposing counsel, and that ultimately Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that they would be supplementing the responses.

Defendant Visser contends that further responses and production were received on August 30, 2023, and while the supplemental responses addressed some of the deficiencies, many remained. Defendant Visser further notes his counsel followed up that same day, and then followed up the next day, August 31, 2023, via telephone. Defendant Visser notes his counsel engaged in a full meet and confer correspondence with another attorney in Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. Counsel for Defendant also asked for further responses by September 5, 2023, and confirmed the meet and confer via email later in the day. On September 5, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff sent a response letter, indicating that they were not going to provide anything further, and claiming that the Code requires a meet and confer to “be done through letter or in person.”

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

            On September 5, 2023, the same day as the conclusion of the meet and confer process, Defendant Visser filed a Motion to Compel. On September 8, 2023, Defendant Visser filed an ex parte application to shorten time on his motion to compel further responses, which the Court granted in part and set a briefing and hearing schedule.   On September 15, 2023, Ko filed an opposition brief and declaration, plus an opposition to the Separate Statement Visser filed with the moving papers.  On September 19, Visser filed a Reply.   

II. MEET AND CONFER

Based on Defendant’s moving papers, it appears to this Court, the meet and confer efforts have been attempted. While Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s meet and confer efforts were not made in good faith, the Court takes those argument into account in ruling on this motion.

III. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

A.    Legal Standard

 “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)  

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

"The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party's subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

A.    Discussion

Here, Defendant Visser moves this Court to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 6, 7, and 11. RFP No. 6 seeks documents relating to a defined term, “Maintenance” at the subject rental unit since December 2, 2022.  RFP No. 7 seeks documents defined as “communications” between Plaintiff and its management company and any mold inspector dated between 9/1/22 and 8/14/23.  RFP No. 11 seeks photographs or videos that depict the defined term “property” since September 1, 2022.  Defendant Visser argues that each of these written requests lacks a statement of compliance and is full of boilerplate objections. Plaintiff argues that its responses are sufficient and no further documents are available to produce.

After review of the requests, responses, Separate Statements of the parties and reasoning for further responses or why the same should be denied, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel.  The Court overrules the objections aside from the privacy objection, and orders Plaintiff to provide a Code-compliant and verified written response withing 15 days.  A Code-complaint written response must include a statement of compliance, i.e., a verified response that states in substance that all non-privileged responsive documents are attached or that after diligent search and reasonable inquiry there are no responsive documents or that any that previously existed have been lost or destroyed.  If any documents are being withheld on the ground of privilege, including the privacy objection being raised in the objections, a privilege log must be provided cataloging the privilege, the date and description of the withheld documents.  It is not compliant with the Code to state that pictures and a report are being attached; rather, a compliant response that mentions specific attached documents must state in effect that there are no other responsive documents.  A tenant is entitled to obtain copies of documents that the landlord or property manager may use at trial that bear on the claims or defenses in the case, or documents in the landlord or property manager’s possession that may help defendant prove its defenses.    

B.     Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.¿¿(CCP. §§

2030.290(c),¿2030.300(d),¿2031.300(c),¿and 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿¿(Id.) 

            Here, Defendant Visser asserts he is entitled to sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $2,790. The Court finds that a reasonable attorney’s fee and thus monetary sanctions is $1,000, given the Court’s experience in judging hundreds of unlawful detainer cases, review of fee declarations in scores of cases, and consideration of similar issues in prior discovery motions.  The ordered monetary sanctions are payable within 30 days by plaintiff’s counsel to defense counsel.