Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV26104, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26104    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff
Denette Elizabeth Rael’s motion
to compel responses to the request for
production of documents is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is
GRANTED. Defendant Iman Rahimi and counsel of record Christopher J.
Cummiskey, Esq. are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $60
within 30 days of this order.

Legal Standard

Compel RPDs 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the
production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. 
(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all
objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc. §
2031.300(a).)  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. 

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel
responses to requests for production of documents against any party, person, or
attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).) 

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may
impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the
discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the
reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result
of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of
this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to
respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the
discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) 

Discussion

On January 30, 2022, Plaintiff propounded
Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant Rahimi. (Saroian
Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Defendant's verified responses were due on or before
February 16, 2022. On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed
Defendant’s counsel, inquiring as to the discovery responses, but defense
counsel did not respond. (Saroian Decl., ¶ 4). On February 25, 2022,
Plaintiff’s counsel again inquired as to the responses. (Id., ¶ 5.) On March 2,
2022, defense counsel responded, alleging that service was improper because it
was also sent to another member of the firm, who was no longer working there. (Id.,
¶ 6.) Defense counsel stated he was not involved on a day-to-day basis, and
therefore was not authorized to accept service on this case. As of the date
this Motion was filed, no responses have been served by Defendant. (Id.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that he has
now served the discovery requests at issue, and thus, the motion is moot.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant
and his counsel served verified responses on April 5, 2022, but the responses
contained objections.

As Defendant has
provided verified responses to the discovery at issue, the Court finds the
motion is moot. To the extent that Plaintiff argues Defendant’s responses
improperly contain objections, the correct procedure would have been for
Plaintiff to file a motion to compel further responses.  

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for
inspection or production of documents 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) (emphasis
added).) A motion to compel further¿must be filed within¿45¿days after service
of the responses. An untimely motion waives the court’s right to compel a
further response. (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§¿2031.310(c);¿Standon Co. v
Superior Court¿(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 902.)¿ 

As to sanctions, Defendant has not
provided any justification for the delay in serving responses in his opposition.
Thus, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant Iman Rahimi and
counsel of record Christopher J. Cummiskey, Esq. are ordered to pay monetary
sanctions in the amount of $60 within 30 days of this order.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the request for production of
documents is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant
Iman Rahimi and counsel of record Christopher J. Cummiskey, Esq. are ordered to
pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $60 within 30 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.