Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV45717, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV45717, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45717 Hearing Date: February 9, 2024 Dept: 29

Tentative

The motion to compel is denied as moot.

The request for sanctions is granted in part.

Background

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Raymond Galbreath (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against Defendants L and R Auto Parks, Inc., Juan Cruz, and Does 1 through 50 for Motor Vehicle Negligence and General Negligence causes of action stemming from an auto accident occurring on December 16, 2019.

On February 9, 2023, Defendants L and R Auto Parks, Inc and Juan Cruz (collectively “Defendants”) served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents (Set No. 2). (Hubert Decl., ¶ 5.)

On June 20, 2023, Defendants filed the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set No. 2). Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on January 29, 2024.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to requests for production, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.) Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”¿ (Id. at pp. 408-409.)¿ This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”¿ (Id. at p. 408.)¿ If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”¿ (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Discussion

On February 9, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents (Set No. 2). (Hubert Decl., ¶ 5.)

Almost a year later, on January 29, 2024, Plaintiff finally responded. (Salinas Decl., ¶ 1.)

Given that responses have now been served, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set No. 2).

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, the Court sets sanctions on the motion in the amount of $450, calculated based on 2 hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $225 per hour. (See Hubert Decl., ¶ 13.)

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and counsel of record the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant under the Civil Discovery Act of $450 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.