Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00503, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00503    Hearing Date: January 31, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On September 9, 2024, plaintiff Rebecca Dean (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion to compel verified responses from defendant M. Pernecky Management Corp. (“Defendant”) to her Supplemental Request for Production. Plaintiff additionally requests $1,310 in sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A party may propound a supplemental demand for production of documents to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.050, subd. (a).) Where a party fails to serve timely responses to the supplemental request, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Plaintiff propounded her supplemental request for production on June 28, 2024. (Motion, Rosal Decl., Ex. A.) On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel granted an extension for Defendant to provide a response to her supplemental discovery by August 16, 2024. (Rosal Decl., ¶ 8.) However, no responses were served by the new deadline. (Rosal Decl., ¶ 9.) Thereafter, on September 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Defendant to serve a verified response.

In an opposition brief filed on January 17, 2025, Defendant argues that this motion is moot because supplemental responses were served on January 16, 2025.

On reply, Plaintiff does not dispute that responses were served. Accordingly, the motion is MOOT.

On reply, Plaintiff maintains her request for sanctions, citing Defendant’s pattern of withholding discovery and forcing Plaintiff to file motions to compel. Plaintiff emphasizes that she has had to file motions to compel Defendant’s responses to every single set of discovery requests propounded, beginning with four filed on January 24, 2024, and two (including this one) filed on September 9, 2024.

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, the Court considers the timeline of events at issue here. First, the Court notes that the Court entered a stipulated protective order on June 5, 2024. Second, it does not appear that Defendant produced any documents when the supplemental document request was propounded. (Rosal Decl., ¶ 10.) Third, after Defendant agreed to provide supplemental responses by August 16, 2024, by the time that Plaintiff filed this motion on September 9, 2024, Defendant had not only failed to serve supplemental responses but also did not produce a single document. (Rosal Decl., ¶ 10.)

The Court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even if the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (C.R.C. 3.1348.) Defendant argues that the Court should exercise its discretion and not impose sanctions because the failure to serve the responses was due to a change of staff and failure to calendar the appropriate deadlines. (Pedone Decl., ¶ 5.) Defense counsel states that Defendant served all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s document requests on November 1, 2024. (Pedone Decl., ¶ 5.) Recently, it found an additional responsive document on January 14, 2025, and therefore, proceeded to supplement its responses on January 16, 2025. (Pedone Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) There is no explanation for the delay.

Instead, it appears that without motion practice, Defendant would not have produced any documents, let alone serve its supplemental responses. Accordingly, the Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $560, consisting of 2 hour at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $250 and a $60 filing fee, payable within 20 days of the date of this Order.

IV.        CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as MOOT. Defendant is ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount of $310 within 20 days of the date of this Order.

Dated this 31st day of January 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.