Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1204719, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Inspection Demand (Set Two) filed by Defendants Phi M. Nguyen and Thy Nguyen (“Defendants”) on 3/29/23 is GRANTED.

Responses in accordance with this ruling are to be provided within 30 days.

Prior to filing a motion to compel, the moving party must meet and confer with the responding party in a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve each issue that would be presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b), and 2033.290(b).)  Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040 requires a good faith attempt to resolve “each issue presented by the motion.” There must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App. 4th 1277, 1294.)

Here, Defendants sent a comprehensive meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on March 14, 2023, after receiving Plaintiff’s original responses.  The letter outlines each of the alleged deficiencies and requests verified responses no later than March 22, 2023. It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not respond to that letter, and thus meet and confer efforts were sufficient.

On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)

The moving party must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) “[A]bsent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the party who seeks to compel production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the responding party has the burden to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the discovery requests. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ showing of good cause for the requested discovery, as further responses to the Inspection Demands at issue were provided on July 21, 2023. However, Plaintiff does not address Defendants’ argument that they are owed a proper verification for the original responses to the special interrogatories.  Per the responses attached to Defendants’ motion as exhibit B of the Saldana declaration, Plaintiff’s verification is dated October 13, 2021, however the discovery was not propounded until December 22, 2022, over a year later. As such, Plaintiff’s original responses are deficient as they are not properly verified.

As such the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Inspection Demand (Set Two) is GRANTED.

Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and his attorney of record in the amount of $990, payable to Defendants through their attorney of record within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.