Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV05622, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV05622 Hearing Date: February 8, 2023 Dept: 31
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO REQUEST OR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
tentative ruling
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further responses to RPD, Set One Nos. 1-7 is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $116.00 against Defendant is also GRANTED.
Background
On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff in pro per Bijan Yaghoobia filed a Complaint against self-represented Defendant Valaria Cruz and Does 1 to 100 for:
1) Waste;
2) Treble Damages;
3) Temporary Restraining Order;
4) Preliminary Injunction; and
5) Permanent Injunction.
On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff moved for a Motion to Compel Defendant to Request for Production of Documents (RPD), Set One.
No opposing papers or reply has been filed.
Legal Standard
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a), parties may move for a further response to request for production where an answer to the requests were evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merits 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b).)
Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule (CRC) 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).
Discussion
motion to Compel Further RPDs
Plaintiff asserts that on July 28, 2022, Plaintiff propounded seven (7) Request for Production of Documents (RPD), Set One on Defendant Valeria Cruz. (Yaghoobia Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter on September 07, 2022, September 17, 2022, and September 22, 2022 requesting Plaintiff provide further responses to RPD. (Id., Ex. B-D.)
Defendant served Plaintiff with a response to the RPD on September 28, 2022. (Yaghoobia Decl. ¶ 2., Ex. E.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s responses were non-responsive, and Plaintiff sent Defendant another meet and confer letter asking Defendant to respond to the RPD’s that were non-responsive. (Id., Ex. F.)
Defendant telephoned Plaintiff and informed Plaintiff that she did not know what she was supposed to do, and Plaintiff responded that she should contact the person or office that prepared her responses. (Id., Ex. G.) On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff asserts he sent Defendant a meet and confer letter explaining why her discovery responses were non-responsive and requested a response by close of business on Tuesday, October 18, 2022. (Id., Ex. H.)
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant committed and continues to commit waste on two subject properties in Los Angeles, CA. Plaintiff’s Separate Statement reveals he seeks further responses to RPD Nos. 1-7.
Defendant’s response to the RPD Nos 1, 2, 3 was “Defendant has made a reasonable search for the documents requested and has found none” despite Plaintiff’s assertion that text messages and correspondence between the parties exist that is relevant.
In regards to RPD No. 4, which seeks “copies of all the emails, instant messages and internal correspondence, facsimiles, telegraphs, telegrams, voice mails, between YOU and Plaintiff Bijan Yaghoobia from the date that YOU became Plaintiff’s tenant located at 1441 Pennsylvania street, unit # A, in the city of Los Angeles, California 90033 to the date of YOUR response to this request for inspection of documents,” Defendant provided a one-sentence response:
“There are only text messages made to Plaintiff on my behalf in which he failed to always respond.”
Plaintiff provided the same response to RPD Nos. 5 and 6. The alleged text messages were not produced.
RPD No. 7 sought “[c]opies f any and all contractual agreements between YOU and Plaintiff made during period of July 1, 2019 to the date of YOUR response to this request for inspection of documents.
Defendant responded:
“No written agreement between the parties, however, there was a written agreement between my mother Rosa Ramos and Plaintiff that was entered approximately 10 years when I was still a minor at the time.”
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to provide copies of the contractual agreement or show any due diligence as to why Defendant is unable to produce the requested contractual agreement.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause as to why further responses to RPD Nos. 1-7 are needed. The Motion is GRANTED.
Request for Sanctions
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.300 subdivision (d) states:
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
Plaintiff’s notice of motion requested sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $116.00 for the cost of bringing this Motion, including the $60.00 filing fee.
Since Plaintiff failed to respond or oppose this Motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $116.00.
Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further responses to RPD, Se One Nos. 1-7 is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $116.00 against Defendant is also GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.