Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 20VECV01093, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20VECV01093    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: W

edwin a. aguirre v. rosa vargas

MOTION to compel discovery

Date of Hearing:          October 11, 2022                    Trial Date:       November 7, 2022

Department:               W                                             Case No.:         20VECV01093

Moving Party:             Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendants Management Systems Corporation dba Park Regency Realty

Responding Party:       None

BACKGROUND

This matter arises from a breach of contract relating to the purchase of a property.         

On October 1, 2020 Plaintiff Edwin A. Aguirre (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Rosa Vargas (“Defendant”) for:

1.                  specific performance for breach of contract to sell real property

2.                  damages for breach of contract.

On April 9, 2021, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint for (1) equitable indemnification, (2) contribution, (3) declaratory relief, (4) negligence, (5) breach of fiduciary duty against Cross-Defendants Management Systems Corporation dba Park Regency Realty (“Cross-Defendants”).

On September 8, 2021, Cross-Defendants and Sandra Kaplan filed a Cross-Complaint for (1) breach of contract, and (2) quantum meruit against Defendant.

Cross-Defendants moves the Court to Compel Plaintiff’s responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (the “Requests”).

[Tentative] Ruling

Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendants Management Systems Corporation dba Park Regency Realty Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Edwin A. Aguirre is ordered to provide responses to the Requests, within 10 days from this hearing.  In addition, Plaintiff is ordered to pay $885 in sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300(c), 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Ibid.)

ANALYSIS

Cross-Defendants served the Requests on Plaintiff on July 7, 2022.  (Miller Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.)  Plaintiff’s responses were due on August 8, 2022.  (Id. at ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the Requests, and, to date, has failed to provide any responses, despite Cross-Defendants attempt to meet and confer to obtain responses to the Requests.  (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5 .)

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to comply with his discovery obligation, as he failed to serve responses to the Requests, despite Cross-Defendants’ attempt to meet and confer to obtain the same.  Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to the Requests, within 10 days from this hearing.

In addition, sanctions against Plaintiff are mandatory because of his failure to serve responses to the Requests.  Cross-Defendants seek $1,710 in sanctions (representing 6 hours of work at a rate of $275/hour plus a $60 filing fee).  The Court finds that the sanctions sought by Cross-Defendants are unreasonable, as the Motion is straightforward and unopposed.  The Court finds that sanctions in the amount of $885 (representing 3 hours of work at a rate of $275/hour plus a $60 filing fee) are reasonable and appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Cross-Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to the Requests is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to the Requests, within 10 days from this hearing.  In addition, Plaintiff is ordered to pay $885 in sanctions.