Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV39928, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39928    Hearing Date: March 5, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Douglas A. Bagby (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on December 22, 2022 against Defendant Joseph Daniel Davis (“Joseph Davis”). Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint on February 26, 2024 against Defendants Joseph Davis and Hilary Davis (jointly, “Defendants”), alleging five causes of action.

Plaintiff now moves for an order “requiring defendant, Joseph D. Davis, to produce the documents he was requested to produce in paragraphs 33-40 and 43 of the Requests For Production of Documents served October 22, 2024, and for Joseph D. Davis and his attorneys of record to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the sum of $6,000…” Joseph Davis opposes.

Discussion

As set forth above, Plaintiff moves for an order “requiring defendant, Joseph D. Davis, to produce the documents he was requested to produce in paragraphs 33-40 and 43 of the Requests For Production of Documents served October 22, 2024, and for Joseph D. Davis and his attorneys of record to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the sum of $6,000…” (Mot. at pp. 1:26-2:2.)

In his declaration in support of the motion, Plaintiff states that “I make this declaration in support of my motion to compel defendant Joseph D. Davis to produce some of the documents sought in the Request For Production of Documents served October 22, 2024, Exhibit ‘A’ hereto. On November 21, 2024, defendant Joseph D. Davis served his Responses to the Requests For Production of Documents, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘B’ without producing any documents whatsoever.” (Bagby Decl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff accordingly appears to move to compel further responses to his requests via the instant motion. 

The Court notes that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), “[o]n receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1)¿A statement¿of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2)¿A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3)¿An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” A motion under subdivision (a) shall “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)

Exhibit “A” to Plaintiff’s declaration is “Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Joseph D. Davis, Set Two,” served on October 22, 2024. (Bagby Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. A.) Exhibit “B” to Plaintiff’s declaration is “Defendant Joseph Davis’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (Nos. 33-48),” served on November 21, 2024. (Bagby Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. B.) In his supporting declaration, Plaintiff states that “[o]n December 3, 2024, I sent a meet and confer email to counsel for defendants included in Exhibit ‘C’ hereto addressing the objections made by defendant Joseph D. Davis to the Requests For Production Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 43.” (Bagby Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s February 6, 2025 declaration provides that “[a]s of this date I have not been able to obtain any records from defendant Joseph D. Davis regarding any of the issues in the TAC…” (Bagby Decl., ¶ 2.)

The Court notes that on February 5, 2025, an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was held in this matter. The Court’s February 5, 2025 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he parties attended the Informal Discovery Conference. The Court ordered as follows: The parties have completed the requisite Informal Discovery Conference for the issues raised in Plaintiff’s IDC Statement that pertain to this case…The parties have 45 days from this date to file [and] serve any applicable motion to compel further or motion for protective order.” On January 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed an IDC Statement in advance of the February 5, 2025 IDC that asserts, inter alia, “Mr. Davis must produce the documents sought in the 9 categories of the request for production of documents to which he objected on November 21, 2024.”

In his opposition to the instant motion, Joseph Davis submits the declaration of his counsel, Nina M. Niedbalski. Ms. Niedbalski attaches as Exhibit 1 to her declaration a “copy of Joseph Davis’ Amended Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two dated February 20, 2025 and the documents produced that were served to Plaintiff via email.” (Niedbalski Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) Joseph Davis’s February 20, 2025 Amended Responses contain amended responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 33-40 and 43. (Niedbalski Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) Joseph Davis asserts that “no informal discovery conference was held as to the alleged deficiency of the February 20, 2025 responses,” and that Plaintiff’s “motion is moot.” (Opp’n at p. 2:8-9; 2:28.)[1] Plaintiff did not file any reply in support of the instant motion and thus does not dispute that Joseph Davis served amended responses to the requests at issue in the instant motion.

As Joseph Davis served amended responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (Nos. 33-40 and 43) after the instant motion was filed, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s instant motion for an order compelling further responses to these requests is moot.  

Lastly, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Joseph Davis and his counsel. Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c) which provides in part that “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (d), 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 a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.” Joseph Davis did not unsuccessfully oppose Plaintiff’s instant motion. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as moot. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.  

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this order.¿ 

DATED:  March 5, 2025                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court