Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 22VECV01190, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV01190    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: T

22VECV01190 CHRISTINE FORRESTER, D.D.S. vs MOHAMAD ALI RESHAD, D.D.S.

Hearing on Motion filed 4/5/2023 to Compel Further Discovery Responses by plaintiff to defendants Mohamad Reshad, D.D.S. and Dr Reshad DDS Inc. DBA Artlab Dentistry's request for identification and production of documents and things, set one, and request for monetary sanctions.

Discussion:

Two separate motions were filed on the same set of discovery responses.  When supplemental responses were served and the second motion was filed, the first motion should have been taken off calendar.  As the second motion has all of the up-to-date information on the discovery and meet and confer, and because the second motion has the cumulative sanctions request, the court's intent is to strike the first motion filed 3/6/2023 and rule only on the second motion filed 4/5/2023. 

In the future, there is no basis to have two motions on the calendar at the same time for the same set of discovery responses.  It required the court to read both motions and compare as to any differences, which was a waste of time. The court notes there is a difference between the motions as to the date of the first production of documents by plaintiff.  In the motion filed 3/6/2023, Mr. Conley declares that plaintiff served 35 pages of documents on 2/8/2023.  In the motion filed 4/5/2023, without any explanation, Mr. Conley changes his declaration and declares that plaintiff served 35 pages of records on 2/2/2023. 

Tentative ruling: 

The court orders plaintiff to provide further verified responses within 20 days to Requests nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 28, 30 and 31 whether there are any additional documents other than what was produced on 3/21/2023 in her custody or control.  The specific statutory language is possession, custody, or control."  Plaintiff used the word "possession" only and despite the meet and confer letter asking her to amend, she did not do so.

The court orders plaintiff to provide further verified responses within 20 days to Requests No. 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 18, 25, 27, and 29 to indicate whether the documents were in plaintiff's possession but are no longer in plaintiff's possession because they have been lost, stolen, or destroyed, or whether they never existed, whether they are not in plaintiff's possession, custody or control but they can be found in the possession of _______ (identify name and address).

The court orders finds that the identification of documents and to which response they are responsive as set forth in the attachments to her email of 3/21/2023 are satisfactory, but plaintiff is ordered to provide a verification under oath that these identifications are true and correct within 20 days.

The motion as to Request No: 8 is denied.

There is no Request No. 26 in the separate statement so it is denied.

Monetary sanctions of $1,560 is found to be reasonable and necessary for the discovery motion (which the court finds to have been overworked) and costs.  Plaintiff should have supplemented her responses long before the motions were filed after the January 2023 meet and confer.  Had she done so, then this motion would not have been necessary.  CCP section 2031.310(h) authorizes these monetary sanctions against plaintiff Christine Forrester for failure to provide Code Complaint responses and production, and she is to pay $1,500 to the Client Trust Account of Ray, Aloia & Conley, LLP, 18430 Brookhurst St. Suite 201L, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 by check or money order no later than 6/15/2023.