Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV40931, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40931    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: 29

Hernandez v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
22STCV40931
Motion to Compel Defendant T.R.E. Elevator Corporation to Respond to Request for Production of Documents and to Produce Documents

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background

On December 29, 2022, Santos Hernandez ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles and Does 1-50 asserting various causes of action for injuries that Plaintiff alleges that he sustained on November 23, 2021, while performing repair work, as an employee of a third=party contractor, on an elevator in building 2 of the Jordan Downs Housing Project in Los Angeles.

On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the same defendants.

On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff amended his complaint to name Walton Construction, Inc. (“Walton”) as Doe 1.

On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff amended his complaint to name T.R.E. Elevator Corporation (“TRE”) as Doe 2.

On March 27, 2024, Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“Authority”) filed an answer to the FAC and a cross-complaint against Steel Craft, Inc. (“Steel Craft”) and Roes 1 through 50.

On May 24, 2024, Walton filed an answer to the FAC and a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 50.

On August 2, 2024, Walton filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) against TRE, Steel Craft, and Roes 1 through 50.

On August 5, 2024, Steel Craft filed an answer to Authority’s cross-complaint.

On August 16, 2024, TRE filed answers to Plaintiff’s FAC and Walton’s FACC.

On October 7, 2024, Authority filed a request to dismiss its cross-complaint.

On December 13, 2024, Steel Craft filed an answer to Walton’s FACC.

On February 5, 2025, Authority filed an amendment to its (dismissed) cross-complaint to name TRE as Roe 1.

Currently before the Court and set for hearing on April 23, 2025, is a motion filed by Walton on March 25, 2025, to compel TRE to respond to its Request for Production of Documents and to produce documents.

No opposition has been filed.

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).)

Discussion

Walton served TRE with Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on December 31, 2024.  (Blackstone Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)  TRE did not respond.  (Id., ¶ 3.) 

Walton need show nothing more.  Its request for an order compelling TRE to respond to the requests for production is granted.

Walton also seeks, however, an order for TRE to produce the documents.  That request is denied without prejudice.

The Civil Discovery Act provides for three separate types of motions relating to document requests: (1) a motion to compel a code compliant initial written responses (when no responses has been provided) (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300); (2) a motion to compel further responses (when responses have been provided but they are not code compliant or contain unmeritorious objections) (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310); and (3) a motion to compel compliance with a response stating that the production will be made (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320).

To the extent that Walton is seeking an order compelling the production of documents, that request is denied as premature.  Such relief is available under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 after a written response is received.

To the extent that Walton is also seeking an order relating to a deposition subpoena served on TRE before it was a party to the litigation, the request is denied without prejudice.

No sanctions are requested.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART Walton’s motion to compel.

The Court ORDERS T.R.E. Elevator Corporation to serve written, verified code-compliant, responses, without objection, within 15 days of notice.

The Court DENIES without prejudice Walton’s other requests for relief.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.