Case Number: BC529914    Hearing Date: July 16, 2014    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to compel responses to requests for production

Moving Party: Plaintiff Rancho Dominguez Equity LLC dba Rancho Tech Center

Resp. Party: Defendant Christy Nguyen

Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Nguyen’s response to the first set of requests for production is GRANTED.

The Court imposes sanctions against Nguyen and her counsel of record, The Tu Law Firm, in the total amount of $1,000.00.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

Defendant Christy Nguyen ends her opposition with the request that “The motion should be granted.” (Opp., p. 8:1.) The Court assumes that defendant is actually asking the Court to deny plaintiff’s motion.

The Court would also appreciate Defendant complying with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(f).

Defendant Christy Nguyen has also attached 804 pages of discovery responses with a declaration of attorney Teague. There is no reason to attach these responses. All documents filed with the Court are scanned. Attaching these extra documents just creates more work for the Court.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff commenced this action against Nguyen and Nga Dinh on 12/10/13 for breach of lease. Plaintiff alleges that defendants breached a lease between the parties by failing to pay rent when due.

On 2/20/14, Nguyen filed a cross-complaint against the moving parties for declaratory relief and negligence. Nguyen alleges that cross-defendants represented Nguyen in the lease transaction with plaintiff. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 1.) Nguyen alleges that cross-defendants negligently advised Nguyen as to opening a restaurant business. (Id., ¶¶ 2-25.) Nguyen seeks a declaration that the lease is unenforceable because it was not signed by all parties. (See id., ¶¶ 27-43.)

On 5/7/14, the Court granted cross-defendants TDL International Law Firm APLC, et al.’s motion to strike references to punitive damages in the cross-complaint. Cross-defendants’ motion to strike was otherwise denied. The Court also denied plaintiff’s motion to strike the cross-complaint.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff seeks to compel defendant Christy Nguyen to provide verified responses to plaintiff’s first set of requests for production, without objections.

Responses to written discovery must be served within 30 days and if responses are not timely served, the responding party waives any objections thereto. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260, 2030.300, 2033.250, 2033.280.) For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Indeed, “[o]nce [a party] ‘fail[ed] to serve a timely response,’ the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party’s] motion to compel responses.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

Plaintiff served the subject requests by mail on April 4, 2014. (See Schuman Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive any responses to the requests. (Id., ¶ 5.)

In the opposition, defendant complains that the requests for production were served with a notice of deposition. Defendant then discusses assertions made regarding defense counsel’s use of a paralegal to do certain work. Defendants fail to show why this is relevant to the instant motion, which only concerns whether defendant provided timely responses to plaintiff’s requests for production. Defendant asserts that plaintiff’s counsel has not sufficiently attempted to informally resolve the dispute; however no meet and confer effort is necessary for a motion to compel initial responses. (See Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶ 8:1486.)

It is unclear if defendant has served responses to the requests for production. On 6/20/14, defendant filed with the Court a declaration by defense counsel Walter Emil Teague III. Attached to this declaration are numerous documents. Teague declares that he has served some documents on plaintiff’s counsel. (See Teague Decl., ¶ 6.) It is unclear if the documents attached to the declaration are the documents served, or if these documents are actually responsive to the requests for production. Teague fails to sufficiently explain the documents or why they were filed with the Court. There is no showing that defendant ever filed verified responses to the requests.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant must provide verified responses and responsive documents, without objection, to plaintiffs first set of requests for production.

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against defendant and her counsel of record in the amount of $1,500.00. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c), a court “shall” impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on any party “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response , unless [the Court] finds that one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) A request for sanctions “shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) The notice of motion “shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Plaintiff makes the sanctions request in the notice and supports it in the memorandum and declaration. The amount of sanctions is based on 1 hour spent meeting and conferring and preparing the motion, and 2 hours to prepare a reply and attend the hearing, all at an hourly rate of $500.00. (Schuman Decl., ¶ 14.) The amount requested is excessive. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover fees for meeting in conferring. Finally, the instant motion should not have taken 1 hour to prepare. All that needed to be shown was that plaintiff served the requests and defendant failed to respond. The other facts discussed in the declaration are irrelevant to the instant motion. (See Schumer Decl., ¶¶ 7-13.)

The Court imposes sanctions against defendant and her counsel of record in the total amount of $1,000.00, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.

Defendant to provide verified responses within 20 days.

SUBJECT: Motion to compel deposition and production of documents

Moving Party: Plaintiff Rancho Dominguez Equity LLC dba Rancho Tech Center

Resp. Party: Defendant Christy Nguyen

The Court orders the parties to meet and confer in person, prior to the Court calling this matter on July 16, 2014. The Court will expect the parties to have agreed upon a date for Christy Nguyen’s deposition, and to indicate that date to the court when the matter is called.