Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00092, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00092    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 1-31-23

Case #22CHCV00092

FURTHER DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jason Bolding

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, D/R Welch Attorneys at Law

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Jason Bolding alleges defendants David Welch and D/R Welch Attorneys at Law provided legal services in order to obtain a cannabis business license with the City of Los Angeles. Rather than submitting an application, Defendants sought to broker an investment agreement with an existing cannabis business also in the process of obtaining cannabis business licensing. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were in fact engaged representing the seller as well, without disclosing said relationship to Plaintiff, thereby creating a conflict of interest. Defendants subsequently disclosed the relationship, and Plaintiff signed the waiver of a conflict “under duress.” No licenses were ever obtained. The third parties never provided any financial or other promised support.

On February 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Written Contract, and Fraud – Concealment. Defendants answered the complaint on August 12, 2022.

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiff Jason Bolding moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one), numbers 1-23 from defendant, D/R Welch Attorneys at Law. The motion comes following a series of blanket objections without any production or privilege log. Defendant in opposition represents supplemental responses were provided, and further state that all responsive documents were provided with said production. Plaintiff in reply reiterates the request for sanctions, due to the necessity of the  motion in order to compel supplemental responses.

"Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions …"

(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

The court accepts the representation regarding service of responses. Lacking are copies of the substantive amended responses. The court therefore declines to consider the sufficiency of the responses, and instead denies the motion as moot.

Nevertheless, as part of court policy on discovery motions where responses are only served after the filing of the motion, the court imposes sanctions in the amount of $250 joint and severally against both responding defendant and counsel, payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 408–409) The court also advises the parties that continued motions prompted by blanket objections, or other forms of delay, may lead to increasing levels of sanctions and referral to a discovery referee.

Motion to Compel Further Responses set for March 14, 2023.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.