Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV29177, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29177    Hearing Date: May 7, 2025    Dept: 45

HARPER ENTERPRISES, L.P. v. DAVID DUPETIT

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY (X3)

Date of Hearing:        May 7, 2025                           Trial Date:       10/20/25

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        23STCV

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Harper Enterprises

Responding Party:     No opposition.

BACKGROUND

This is an action involving allegations that defendant breached a commercial lease.  Plaintiff propounded three sets of discovery at issue here.   Plaintiff filed three motions to compel, to which defendant has filed no opposition.    Plaintiff seeks further verified responses and monetary sanctions in connection with each of their motions.

RULING:

Plaintiff’s motions are granted.  Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are granted in part.

SUBSTANCE OF MOTIONS

Request for Further Responses to Request for Admissions

Defendant’s responses are deficient.  Each one of the admissions is phrased in a simple and straightforward manner and can be affirmatively admitted or denied.  Defendant’s answers are evasive and non-responsive.  Defendant is ordered to provide further responses without objection in compliance with the code within 30 days. 

Request for Further Responses to Form Interrogatories.

Defendant’s responses are evasive.  Each one of the interrogatories is phrased in a simple and straightforward manner and can be answered without objection by defendant.   Defendant’s answers are evasive and non-responsive.    Defendant is ordered to provide further and complete responses without objection in compliance with the code within 30 days. 

Request for Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Defendant’s responses are not code-compliant.   Defendant must conduct a diligent search and produce all non-privileged documents, accompanied by a statement that all responsive documents are being produced.   The current response by defendant is inadequate -- “Subject to and including the general and specific objections

above, respondent provides the following documents: Lease, Notice, Emails, Certificates, Text messages”  -- because it does not clearly state that all responsive documents are being produced. It is vague and non-responsive as written.  If any are withheld on grounds of privilege, a privilege log must be produced, itemizing each document withheld.  

REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

A party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further responses is subject to sanctions unless it demonstrates substantial justification for its failure to respond or that imposition of sanctions would otherwise be unjust. (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h).) A party cannot avoid sanctions by serving supplemental responses prior to hearing or declining to file an opposition. (CRC 3.1348(a).)

The court finds defendant’s responses were not substantially justified and defendant’s conduct required plaintiff to file these motions. Accordingly, sanctions are appropriate as to each motion.  However, the court will reduce the sanctions to $1000 for each motion, as there is some degree of repetition in the motions themselves.  Defendant is ordered to pay these sanctions within 30 days.