Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 20VECV00103, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 20VECV00103    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: T



20VECV00103 CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS TERRELL vs JOSELYN SOBLE

[TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Plaintiff Christopher Terrell’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production Set 5, nos. 98-119, without objections and to Compel Production of Responsive Documents is MOOT.

            Plaintiff Christopher Terrell’s request for sanctions against Defendant Diamond Professionals International (DPI) is DENIED.

 

 

Introduction

            Plaintiff Christopher Terrell (Plaintiff) moved to compel responses and production of documents to request nos. 98-119 of Request for Production of Documents (RFP) Set 5 against Defendant Diamond Professionals International (DPI) and requested monetary sanctions of $3,555.00 against DPI, and issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. 

            Discussion 

            DPI’s Counsel, Darin Dominguez, filed a declaration attesting to service of the responses to RFP Set 5, request nos. 98-119.  The responses without objections and production of responsive documents were served on April 17, 2023.  (Decl. of Darin Dominguez, par. 9, Exh. 1.)  Because responses were served, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is MOOT.

            As to sanctions requested against defendants, Mr. Dominguez attested to his oversight in failing to timely serve the responses and produce responsive documents.  (Decl. of Darin Dominguez, par. 4-7.)  Because Mr. Dominguez took blame for the untimely responses, Mr. Dominguez provided facts to show that the imposition of all sanctions requested against DPI would be unjust.  All sanctions requested against DPI are DENIED. 

Mr. Dominguez’s oversight caused Plaintiff to incur unnecessary attorneys’ fees in having to file the instant motion.  However, monetary sanctions were requested only against the DPI.  Here, the evidence is that Mr. Dominguez caused the delay. Therefore, as there was no notice of motion and motion for sanctions against Mr. Dominguez, the request for sanctions is denied.

            IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.