Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 24STCV05359, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05359    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff Kimberley Esliza filed this action against Defendants Wayne Borromeo and The Parks Apparel LLC.

On April 30, 2024, Plaintiff served Requests for Production on Defendants.  Defendants’ counsel requested, and Plaintiff’s counsel granted, an extension of time to respond.  Defendants timely provided responses on June 21, 2024.

On July 10 and 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions to compel further responses.  Each motion includes a request for sanctions.  On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed Notices of Errata to clarify that she is seeking sanctions against only Defendants and not their counsel.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

For a motion to compel further, Plaintiff must meet and confer with Defendants and file a Separate Statement or follow the Court’s alternative method of outlining the disputes.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)  This Department requires the parties to follow the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 48’s Courtroom Information (available on the Court’s website) and file a joint statement.  Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration makes clear that they did not attempt to follow Department 48’s procedures for a joint statement.

If any party continues to electronically file noncompliant documents, the Court may strike the filings or issue sanctions.

DISCUSSION

A party may move to compel a further response to a discovery demand if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.310, subd. (a) [documents], 2033.290, subd. (a) [admissions].)

A.        The Motions Are Moot.

Defendants’ June 21, 2024 responses did not include any verifications or documents.  Defendants produced verifications on June 26, 2024, and relevant documents on September 27, 2024.  (Ernster Decl. ¶ 6.)  The motions are now moot.

B.        The Court Will Not Award Sanctions.

The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even where the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel with a “meet and confer” letter on June 28, 2024.  (Liskey Decl. ¶ 2.)  Defendants’ counsel did not respond.  (Liskey Decl. ¶ 2.)  On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel at 8:49 a.m. and left a message at her office, requesting a response by the close of business.  (Liskey Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. B.)  At 5:01 p.m. the same day, Plaintiff’s counsel electronically served the motions on Defendants.  (Liskey Reply Decl., Ex. A.)  Plaintiff filed her motions on July 10 at 5:17 p.m. and July 11 at 12:03 p.m.

Plaintiff’s counsel has not shown “a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  Plaintiff’s counsel made their sole attempt to speak with Defendants’ counsel via phone on the same day as Plaintiff’s self-imposed deadline.  Plaintiff’s counsel could have—and should have—made further efforts to confer with Defendants’ counsel before Plaintiff’s statutory motion deadline of August 5, 2024.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c) [a party has 45 days to move to compel further responses].)  In fact, Defendants’ counsel explained that Defendants were “still searching for documents, given that he has to try to get access to an old system that is no longer in use.”  (Liskey Reply Decl., Ex. A.)

Had Plaintiff’s counsel made better attempts at conferring and working in good faith with opposing counsel instead of preemptively refusing to grant a second extension (see Ernster Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. B [June 7, 2024 email])—and had Plaintiff’s counsel made any efforts at all to comply with this Department’s discovery procedures—these motions would have been unnecessary.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

CONCLUSION

The motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

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 6th day of February 2025