Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV18601, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18601    Hearing Date: May 8, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Kiryl Milkhalkevich to Respond to Requests for Production of Documents filed by Defendants Gryphon Aircraft Services, LLC.
Motions to Compel Plaintiff Alexander Moryakov to Respond to Requests for Production of Documents filed by Defendants Gryphon Aircraft Services, LLC.

Tentative

The motions are denied as moot.

Background

These consolidated cases arise from an airplane accident occurring on October 13, 2020.

On June 7, 2022, Kiryl Milkhalkevich and Alexander Moryakov (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Michael Hallow, Amazing Concepts, LLC, AVFUEL Corporation, Gryphon Aircraft Services, LLC, Titus Lindstrom, Burbank Air Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) strict products liability, and (3) negligent products liability (breach of warranty).

On July 14, 2022, Michael Halow and Amazing Concepts, LLC filed a complaint against AVFUEL Corporation, Gryphon Aircraft Services, LLC, Titus Lindstrom, Burbank Air Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) strict products liability, and (3) negligent products liability (breach of warranty).

The two cases were related on September 27, 2023, and consolidated on November 9, 2023.

As is relevant to the matters set for hearing on May 8, 2024, Defendant Gryphon Aircraft Services, LLC (“Gryphon”) served Plaintiffs Kiryl Milkhalkevich (“Milkhalkevich”) and Alexander Moryakov (“Moryakov”) with Requests for Production (Set Two) on January 26, 2024.  (Hembree Decls., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.)  On the day that the responses were due, Plaintiffs requested a two-week extension to respond.  (Id., ¶ 5.)  Gryphon denied that request.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff did not serve responses.  (Ibid.) 

On March 4, 2024, Gryphon filed these two motions to compel responses to the document requests.  Grypon also seeks sanctions. 

The next day, on March 5, Plaintiffs served verified responses.  (Runia Decls., ¶ 6 & Exhs. B.)  On or about April 2, Plaintiffs provided further responses.  (Id., ¶ 7 & Exhs. C.)

Plaintiffs filed oppositions to these motions on April 24, along with their own requests for sanctions. 

Gryphon filed replies on May 1.

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 2023.030 provides that “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose … a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process … pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

In this motion, Gryphon seeks a court order compelling Plaintiffs Milkhalkevich and Moryakov to provide initial written responses to requests for production pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.  As of the time the motions were filed, the responses were overdue and had not been provided.  (Hembree Decls., ¶¶ 4-5.)

After the motion was filed, Plaintiffs Milkhalkevich and Moryakov provided initial responses.  Accordingly, the motion to compel initial responses is moot.

If Gryphon contends that the responses assert waived objections or are otherwise not code compliant, Gryphon may (after following all procedural requirements) bring a motion to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310.

If Plaintiffs contend that they should be relieved from waiving objections, they may seek such relief through a noticed motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Gryphon’s request for sanctions is denied.  The motion to compel is denied as moot, and therefore Plaintiffs have not unsuccessfully opposed the motion, as is required for an award of sanctions under the applicable code provision.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.  The Court finds that Gryphon has acted with substantial justification.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the motions to compel as moot.

The Court DENIES both sides’ requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.