Case Number: BC661596 Hearing Date: November 26, 2019 Dept: 48

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Heartland Payroll Solutions, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Netpay Payroll, Inc. and Netpay Insurance Services, Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE

Correct Address: Yes.
16/21 (CCP § 1005(b)): OK. Served by mail on May 29, 2019.

GRANT motion to compel compliance as to Requests For Production Nos. 75, 76, 80, 81, 82;
GRANT request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,610.00.
Motion to compel further responses and motion for evidentiary sanctions are placed OFF-CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

Motion to Compel Compliance

This should have been reserved and filed as three separate motions: (1) a motion to compel compliance; (2) a motion to compel further responses; and (3) a motion for evidentiary sanctions. However, only one hearing was reserved and only one filing fee was paid. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

The Court will only rule upon the motion to compel compliance[1]. The motion to compel further responses and motion for evidentiary sanctions is placed OFF-CALENDAR.

CCP § 2031.320(a) provides:

(a) If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.

A motion to compel compliance pursuant to CCP § 2031.320 does not have a 45-day time limit, nor does it contain a meet and confer requirement or a good cause requirement. However, such a motion is only proper where the responding party represented in its response that it would comply with the request for production and failed to do so. CCP § 2031.320(a). A proper response to a request for production is “[a] statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling” by the date set forth in CCP § 2031.030(c)(2)(within a reasonable time, at least 30 days after service of the demand).

The motion to compel compliance is GRANTED as to Requests for Production Nos. 75, 76, 80, 81, 82.

Defendant’s counsel indicates that he learned that Plaintiffs are in possession of responsive documents. Declaration of Kristapor Vartanian, ¶ 9. Plaintiffs are to produce all of the following documents in their possession, custody or control to the extent they are responsive to the document requests:

¿ Contracts and agreements between Plaintiffs and customers at issue in this litigation;

¿ Documents showing the first and last date Plaintiffs did business with such customers;

¿ Documents showing accounts payable relating to such customers;

¿ Documents showing accounts receivable relating to such customers;

¿ Receipts and invoices related to such customers;

¿ Communications between Plaintiffs and subject customers after February 1, 2016;

¿ Communications between Plaintiffs’ officers, directors, owners or employees relating to the subject customers.

Production of documents is due within 20 days of this order.

The request for sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel, Law Offices of Paul D. Bojic, jointly and severally, is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,610.00. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days of this order.

[1] The Court notes that a motion to compel further responses would appear to be untimely based upon the February 25, 2019 service of responses (deadline: April 16, 2019). This motion was served and filed on May 29, 2019. Moreover, a motion for evidentiary sanctions would be premature at this stage.