Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 23STCV30321, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV30321, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30321 Hearing Date: March 3, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: March 3, 2025 TRIAL DATE: June 10, 2025

CASE: Rama Healthcare Services LLC v. Lakeview Terrace Skilled Nursing Facility, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: 23STCV30321

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

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rama Healthcare Services LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant South Pasadena Care Center, LLC

CASE HISTORY:

· 12/12/23: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for breach of contract arising from the failure to pay financial obligations.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant South Pasadena Care Center, LLC, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Plaintiff and its counsel, jointly and severally in the amount of $1,040. Sanctions shall be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 10 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant South Pasadena Care Center, LLC, and for sanctions.

Legal Standard

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.)

Plaintiff propounded the discovery at issue on June 25, 2024. (Separate Statement Exh. 1 POS.) The operative responses at issue on this motion were served by email on October 23, 2024, two days before this motion was filed. (Id. Exh. 8.) This motion is therefore timely.

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).)

Although Plaintiff’s counsel describes, with exhibits, a lengthy exchange between the parties involving multiple amendments to Defendant’s response to the requests, that same production demonstrates that Plaintiff’s counsel made absolutely no effort to confer with Defendant regarding the sufficiency of the current responses before bringing this motion. (See Exh. 9.) Plaintiff has not satisfied its statutory obligations.

Defendant’s Objection to Meet and Confer Declaration

Defendant objects to the legal conclusion of Plaintiff’s counsel in his supporting declaration that Defendant failed to timely respond to the requests for production. (See Declaration of Michael Sayer ¶ 1.) Defendant’s objection is SUSTAINED as an improper legal conclusion. (In Re. Marriage of Heggie (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 28, 30, fn.3.)

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant South Pasadena Care Center, LLC.

At the outset, Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion fails to identify the particular requests for production which are at issue on the motion. Moreover, although the Separate Statement identifies Requests Nos. 2 through 9 as being at issue, Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts demonstrating good cause for the requests. (Fireman’s Furnd Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 1138, 1141 [declarations used to show good cause must set forth specific facts, not mere conclusions].) Although Plaintiff presents a narrative in its memorandum of points and authorities concerning the business dealings of the various Defendants, the assertions in Plaintiff’s brief are unsupported by evidence and are entirely unmoored from the boilerplate allegations in the Complaint. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the relevance, and, therefore, good cause for the requests. Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to an order compelling further responses.

Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel. As Plaintiff has not prevailed on the motion, Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions.

Defendant also requests sanctions in opposition in the amount of $1,360.

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, Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,360, accounting for 2.6 hours at $400 per hour preparing the opposition, plus 0.8 anticipated hours for the hearing on this motion. (Declaration of Ami Meyers ISO Opp.) In light of Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer and the deficient moving papers, the Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $1,040, reflecting the hours actually incurred in preparing the opposition.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2025 ___________________________________

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.