Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCV04626, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04626    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: W

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JAYESH S KHATRI

PLAINTIFF’s MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Date of Hearing:        February 21, 2023                             Trial Date:       None set.  

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        22STCV04626

Moving Party:            Plaintiff State Farm General Insurance Company  

Responding Party:     Defendant Jayesh S. Khatri

BACKGROUND

This is a subrogation action arising from Defendant Khatri’s alleged poor maintenance of Plaintiff’s insured’s property that resulted in water damage. Plaintiff State Farm General Insurance Company filed a complaint against Defendant on February 7, 2022 for subrogation and indebtedness.

This action has been related to 21VECV00909 Khatri vs. Farkondeh et al.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff State Farm General Insurance Company moves for the court for an order that Defendant Jayesh Khatri provide further responses without objection to the Request for Production propounded June 9, 2022 and further order Defendant Khatri to pay Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,410.00 for reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the instant motion.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310, subdivision (a), parties may move for a further response to requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.¿¿Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration and separate statement. (CCP § 2031.310(b); CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(3).)¿¿¿¿

In support of Plaintiff’s motion to compel further, Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration attesting to the meet and confer efforts as well as their request to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel further. However, the declaration fails to include the exhibits. Moreover, the motion fails to include a separate statement as required under the Local Rules. As a result, the court cannot determine whether the discovery responses are evasive or incomplete or whether the any objection is without merit or too general.

In opposition, Defendant notes Plaintiff’s lack of separate statement but contends they will continue to cooperate and supplement the responses regarding the production of documents. The court hopes the parties continue to work out any further discovery issues before bringing additional motions to compel discovery.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is also DENIED.