Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02311, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02311    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

SOPHIA CHEUNG,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

POTATO CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

     CASE NO.:  23AHCV02311

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT POTATO CONSTRUCTION, INC.; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

April 10, 2025

 

)

 

 

          On October 18, 2024, Plaintiff Sophia Cheung (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion for an order compelling defendant Potato Construction, Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. 1, Nos. 11-14, 20-36, 38-39, and 50.

          Good cause exists for Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 11-13, 20-36, and 38-39, which seek documents identifying the individuals and subcontractors employed to carry out the terms of the construction contract as well as the cost of labor and materials. In response to these RFPs, Defendant stated that it was unable to locate any documents and believes that such documents do not exist. This response is inadequate because it fails to specify whether “the inability to comply is because the particular item or category [of documents] has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) The response shall also “set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 11-13, 20-36, and 38-39 and Defendant is ordered to serve further responses within 20 days of the date of this Order.

          As for RFP No. 14, which asks for documents identifying all independent contractors hired to perform labor, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant’s limited production of nonresponsive documents and claims the documents do not sufficiently identify any independent contractors. Defendant does not address RFP No. 14 in its opposition brief or substantiate its production. Therefore, the motion to compel a further response is GRANTED and Defendant must clarify whether it has responsive documents and if so, produce them within 20 days of the date of this Order. If no documents exist, then Defendant must provide a response that complies with section 2031.230 within 20 days of the date of this Order.

          RFP No. 50 asks for all business licenses in effect at the time Defendant entered into the construction agreement with Plaintiff. Defendant agreed to produce all documents, yet Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) and complains that no Bates numbered documents have been listed in the response. The statute only requires that produced documents “be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).) Since Defendant agreed to produce the documents and have failed to, the Court construes this part of Plaintiff’s motion as one for an order compelling Defendant to comply with its statement of compliance and orders Defendant to produce responsive documents within 20 days of the date of this Order. If no responsive documents exist, Defendant must provide a further response in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 within 20 days of the date of this Order.

          The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the reasonable amount of $2,400 consisting of 6 hours at J.R. Dimuzio’s hourly rate of $400, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order.

 

Dated this 10th day of April 2025

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

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.