Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STLC09822, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC09822    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 27, 2023                 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Stanford Neighborhood Association LLC v. Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 20STLC09822           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants/Cross-Complainants Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc., Grit & Gravel Inc, and United Pacific Waste

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Cross-Defendant Kareem Corp.

CASE HISTORY:

·         11/24/20: Complaint filed

·         02/09/21: Cross-Complaint filed as to Stanford Neighborhood Association, LLC; DGT Holdings LLC, and LA Catering Truck MFG, Inc.

·         02/26/21: First Amended Complaint filed.

·         04/09/21: Cross-Complaint filed as to Grit & Gravel Inc. and Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc.

·         07/01/21: Second Amended Complaint filed.

·         07/21/21: First Amended Cross Complaint filed as to Stanford Neighborhood Association, LLC; DGT Holdings LLC, and LA Catering Truck MFG, Inc.

·         08/09/21: First Amended Cross-Complaint filed as to Grit & Gravel Inc. and Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for trespass, nuisance, negligence, and intentional interference with contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to comply with local zoning ordinances pertaining to a building materials salvage yard which they operate.

Cross-Complainants move to compel further responses to requests for production (set three) propounded to Cross-Defendant Kareem Corp.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Cross-Complainants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED. Cross-Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

            Cross-Complainants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $665 against Cross-Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made to Cross-Complainants’ counsel within 10 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Cross-Complainants move to compel further responses to requests for production (set three) propounded to Cross-Defendant Kareem Corp.

Legal Standards

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Cross-Defendant served its responses to the outstanding discovery requests on July 24, 2021. (Declaration of Donald A. Velez ISO Mot. ¶ 3.) At a September 15, 2022 Informal Discovery Conference, the Court ordered, pursuant to an oral agreement by the parties, that any motion to compel further responses was to be filed by December 19, 2022. (September 15, 2022 Minute Order, Cross-Complainants Exh. U.) This motion was filed on December 15, 2022. This motion is therefore timely pursuant to a written stipulation by the parties.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

The Declaration of Donald Velez provides extensive documentation of the parties’ meet and confer efforts between December 14, 2021 and the date this motion was filed. (Velez Decl. Exhs. C-T.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the statutory meet and confer obligations.

Cross-Complainants’ Separate Statement

Cross-Complainants filed a document with this motion entitled a “Separate Statement.” However, instead of a proper separate statement, as required by California Rule of Court 3.1345, Cross-Complainants filed a concise outline “for the convenience of the Court.” A concise outline may be filed in lieu of a separate statement when authorized by the Court. (Rule 3.1345.) Cross-Complainants received no such authorization in connection with this motion. However, as the nature of the dispute is clear from the materials provided, and as Cross-Complainants have provided the requests and responses at issue, the Court will address the motion on the merits.

Analysis

            The document requests at issue seek documents related to lease and rental agreements and payments for customers or clients at Cross-Defendant’s property, as well as documents supporting Cross-Defendants claims of harm or particulates. (Velez Decl. Exh. A.) The requests also seek documents relating to correspondence with and inspections by the Los Angeles County Health Department and current or prospective insurers, as well as relating to Cross-Defendants’ building permits, certificates of occupancy, and business licenses. (Id.) These requests relate, on their face, to the allegations in the Complaint and the Cross-Complaint. The Court therefore finds that there is good cause for these requests.

            At the September 15, 2022 Informal Discovery Conference, the Court ordered that Cross-Defendant was to serve responsive documents by October 14, 2022. (Velez Decl. Exh. U.) On that date, Cross-Defendant produced a single document, without any indication as to what request the document related to. (Id. Exh. V.) No other documents have ever been produced. This production is not remotely compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court finds that an order compelling further responses is warranted.

Sanctions

            Cross-Complainants request sanctions against Cross-Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, for failure to comply with their discovery obligations.

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose monetary sanctions on any attorney engaging in the misuse of the discovery process by requiring that attorney to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h) requires the Court to impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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.

            Here, Cross-Complainants request sanctions in the amount of $1,400 against Cross-Defendant and its counsel. However, the accompanying declaration states that the total cost of this motion was only $665. Cross-Complainants base this calculation on a 1/3 pro rata share of the total number of hours billed in connection with three discovery motions, of which this is one. Cross-Complainants contend that a total of 4.2 hours at a rate of $475 per hour were billed in connection with the three motions, for a total of $1,995. (Velez Decl. ¶¶ 11-12.) Thus, a 1/3 pro rata share is $665.00, representing 1.4 hours of attorney time at $475 per hour.  Given the relative simplicity of this motion, notwithstanding the extensive meet and confer process, the Court finds the pro rata share stated in the declaration to be reasonable. The Court will therefore award sanctions in the amount of $665 against Cross-Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Cross-Complainants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED. Cross-Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

            Cross-Complainants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $665 against Cross-Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made to Cross-Complainants’ counsel within 10 days of this order.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 27, 2023                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.