Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV16977, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16977    Hearing Date: November 21, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 23, 2022, Jessica De Rothschild, Alexander Gervasi, and Industria (USA) LLC (“Industria”) filed this action against Diana Lands aka Diana Lands Nathanson (“Lands”) and Diana Lands Nathanson Design Inc.

On September 7, 2022, Lands served Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Gervasi.  (Dove Decl. ¶ 2.)  Gervasi served responses on October 21 and 25, 2022.  (Dove Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)  According to Lands, “there were 9,753 pages of documents divided into 2,737 separate pdf files.  This production was a collective of documents produced by all 3 Plaintiffs. . . . None of the documents were identified to allow a reader to know which plaintiff produced which documents or which Request the documents were responsive to.”  (Dove Decl. ¶ 5.)

On October 31, 2022, Lands’s counsel sent a letter to Gervasi’s counsel.  (Dove Decl. ¶ 6.)  During a call on December 7, 2022, Lands’s counsel contended that the responses were noncompliant.  (Dove Decl. ¶ 7.)

Gervasi served supplemental responses on December 21, 2022.  (Dove Decl. ¶ 9.)  Of the 71 categories of documents requested, Gervasi responded that he would produce documents responsive to 56 categories.  (Dove Decl. ¶ 10.)   However, Lands’s counsel was unable to discern what documents were produced in response to which request or category of documents.  (Dove Decl. ¶ 10.)

Lands filed a motion to compel compliance (Code Civ Proc., § 2031.280) on July 12, 2023.  Gervasi did not file an Opposition corresponding with this hearing date or reservation number.  However, Gervasi did file an “Opposition To Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sacha Gervasi to Produce Documents” on November 7, 2023, referencing the November 16, 2023 hearing on a similar motion against Industria.  The Court will therefore reference that Opposition.

According to Lands’s counsel, “Between the October 31 correspondence and December 7 telephone conference, I have satisfied the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.040 to reach an informal resolution to this issue.”  (Dove Decl. ¶ 8.)  However, counsel did not meet and confer after Gervasi’s December 21, 2022 supplemental responses, despite Gervasi’s counsel’s attempts.  (See Elsea Decl. ¶¶ 10-13.)  Nevertheless, the Court will rule on the merits of the motion.

If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

“Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).)  “There is no requirement that a response identify a document with the specific request to which the document applies,” and no requirement that documents be Bates-stamped.  (Pollock v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1348, 1358.)

On September 1, 2023, Gervasi’s counsel sent to Lands’s counsel a spreadsheet categorizing the documents by RFP number.  (Elsea Decl., Ex. B.)  This spreadsheet clearly states the beginning and ending Bates-stamp pages for each complete document, and it lists the RFPs for which the document is responsive.  This is a compliant response and resolves the issue set forth by Lands.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

The requests for sanctions are denied.  Lands should have continued to meet and confer after receiving supplemental responses on December 21, 2022 and before filing this motion on July 12, 2023.  Gervasi should not have waited until September 1, 2023 to identify the documents because Lands’s October 31, 2022 specifically stated the issue.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 21st day of November 2023