Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00158, Date: 2022-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00158    Hearing Date: November 3, 2022    Dept: R

Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE AND MONETARY SANCTION

            Responding Party: Unopposed as Monday, 10/24 (due 9 court days before the hearing)

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE AND MONETARY SANCTION is DENIED.

Background

Plaintiff Xiaolin Wang alleges the following against Defendant Shaobin Wang: Plaintiff and Defendant are siblings. At the request of Defendant, Plaintiff added her brother to Plaintiff’s checking account. Defendant withdrew $17,000 from Plaintiff’s checking account. Additionally, Defendant has failed to make other payments to Plaintiff (for a car loan, rent, and car repair). In total, Defendant owes Plaintiff $31,093.00.

On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant action for:

1.      Breach of Contract,

2.      Fraud,

3.      Intentional Misrepresentation, and

4.      Promissory Estoppel

On March 8, 2022, Defendant filed his answer.

On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant ‘Motion for Sanctions.’

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides, in pertinent part, 

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: 

(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 

. . . 

(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. 

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a), (b), (c).) 

Discussion

Plaintiff avers that she served the instant discovery on Defendant on June 6, 2022, but that Defendant has “failed to serve a timely response” to the discovery. (Motion 2, 6.)

Here, the court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is meritless. A defendant has 30 days to respond to discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) Accordingly, if Plaintiff served the discovery upon Defendant on June 6, 2022, then Defendant had until July 6, 2022, to serve responses. However, Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 27, 2022, which was before the time for Defendant’s response.

Therefore, as Plaintiff unsuccessfully brought forth the motion, monetary sanctions are mandatory. Moreover, the court does not find substantial justification or other circumstances present to nullify imposition of monetary sanctions because Plaintiff was too swift in making the instant motion.

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court imposes sanctions on Plaintiff’s Counsel in the amount of $350. Sanctions are payable to Defense Counsel within 20 days of the hearing.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied, and monetary sanctions are imposed on Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $350 for bringing forth a meritless motion.