Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV12807, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12807    Hearing Date: July 29, 2024    Dept: 47

On May 30, 2024, Defendants filed two motions to compel seeking supplemental responses to request for production of documents and special interrogatories and sought monetary sanctions totaling $2,682.50.   After the motion was served, the parties continued their meet-and-confer efforts which ultimately resulted in Plaintiff serving supplemental responses on July 3, 2024.  Plaintiff’s counsel urged Defendants to continue their discovery motions to allow for further discussions about any perceived deficiencies and obviate the need for any oppositions, but to no avail.  When the deadline for filing oppositions arrived, Plaintiff sought sanctions of $10,200 to draft two very short, simple oppositions.  Although Defendants tried to take their motions off calendar, this was not possible because of Plaintiff’s interest in pursuing her inflated sanctions requests. 

                The Court’s rulings on the discovery disputes between the parties are as follows.  The motions to compel further responses are DENIED as they have been mooted by Plaintiff’s supplemental responses.  Because those responses were not forthcoming until after the motions were filed, Defendants have a possible basis for recovering attorneys’ fees for filing the motions.  Because Defendants did not take their motions off calendar before the deadline for opposition, Plaintiff might have a claim for monetary sanctions, but not for the exorbitant amount of fees sought.  The Court finds that if the parties and their counsel had pursued their discovery negotiations in a good faith effort to resolve their disputes with extensions to respond and to file motions to compel, neither side would have had to expend funds on these discovery motions.  Accordingly, the Court DENIES both sides’ requests for sanctions and entreats them to avoid unnecessary discovery litigation in the future.