18-CIV-04107 ERIK CORRIGAN, ET AL. VS. KATHERINE VALENTINE, ET AL.

ERIK CORRIGAN KATHERINE VALENTINE
JULIENNE NUCUM GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ motion for sanctions is DENIED in its entirety.

The court’s order on Defendants’ motion to compel responses provided that “Plaintiffs shall serve verified responses, without objections, within 10 days of Notice of Entry of this Order.” On July 18, eight days after the court issued its tentative ruling, Plaintiffs served a “partial joint response” to Defendants’ requests for production. In conjunction with that response, Plaintiffs produced approximately 600 pages of documents. Subsequent to the filing of this motion, Plaintiffs produced approximately 1900 electronic files.

In this motion, Defendants emphasize that Plaintiff’s production was deficient. According to Defendants, “[Plaintiffs] have disobeyed [the court’s July 23] order by failing to produce all of the responsive documents as they were ordered to produce, without objection.” MPA, p.3. The court, however, did not order Plaintiffs to produce documents. Rather, as noted above, the court ordered Plaintiffs to provide responses to requests for production. As a result, Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs failed “to produce all of the responsive documents as they were ordered to produce” has no merit.

Defendants also note that Plaintiffs’ responses were not compliant with CCP 2031.210. MPA, p.3. Defendants are correct in this assertion. Plaintiffs’ “partial joint response” to the requests for production was inadequate because the responses did not “respond separately to each item or category of item” with “a statement that the party will comply” or “a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply.” CCP § 2031.210.

Defendants’ remedy in this situation was to file a motion to compel further responses. There is no indication, however, that Defendants informed Plaintiffs that the responses were deficient, or that the parties met and conferred on this issue. As a result, the court declines to issue monetary sanctions. Further, even if the court was inclined to grant monetary sanctions despite the procedural defects, Defendants have not supported their request for monetary sanctions with a declaration showing the number of hours expended or the hourly rate for preparing this motion.

Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiffs deliberately disobeyed any discovery order. Accordingly, there is no basis for awarding issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions.