Case Number: 17K00784 Hearing Date: May 29, 2018 Dept: 94

Plaintiff Airdraulics, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,360.

Background

Plaintiff Airdraulics, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Superior Inspection & Leak Detection Inc. (“Defendant”) on January 11, 2017. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to detect leaks in its hydraulic hose system, which it had been hired to do. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant attempted to enforce an unenforceable provision in the contract prohibiting Plaintiff from posting negative reviews regarding Defendant’s services. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of California Civil Code § 1670.8 and (2) breach of contract.

Legal Standard

CCP § 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2031.310(a).)

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, or upon a later date agreed to in writing. Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b)(2).)

CRC, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery, including motions to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents (CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(3)), contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (CRC, Rule 3.1345(a).)

Discussion

Meet and Confer

As an initial matter, Defendant argues Plaintiff did not sufficiently meet and confer.

On April 19, 2018, Plaintiff sent Defendant a five-page letter detailing its view that Defendant should provide a further response to RFPD No. 3. (Miller Decl., Exh. A.) On April 20, 2018, Defendant responded with a one-paragraph email that did not substantively respond to many of the arguments raised by Plaintiff. (Miller Decl., Exh. B.) While the Court agrees it is somewhat discourteous to file the instant motion, rather than continue discussing the matter with opposing counsel, in context, the Court concludes Plaintiff’s decision to proceed with a motion was reasonable.

The Court therefore concludes Plaintiff has sufficiently attempted to meet and confer. The Court will proceed to a consideration of the merits of the dispute.

RFPD No. 3

RFPD No. 3 states “Please produce each and every document that relates or refers to any contention that Airdraulics, Inc. or you make in this litigation.”

Defendant’s response states, “Objection: This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Fails to specify a specific category of documents.”

In general, the Court agrees the request is somewhat vague and ambiguous. As noted by Plaintiff, however, that does not justify Defendant in refusing to respond. “[W]here the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

The Court in particular is concerned by the fact that Defendant apparently knows precisely what Plaintiff seeks. Defendant states, in opposition, that “in response to the proper Form Interrogatories-Limited Civil Nos. 112.4 and 115.2, Plaintiff provided detailed responses and bate—stamped documents as to his contention he was not responsible for plaintiffs damages.” (Oppo. 3:6-8.) Based on this statement, it appears Defendant is fully aware of what documents Plaintiff is seeking, and its real objection is not that the request is too ambiguous, but that it has already produced the documents. Clearly, if Defendant was aware of what Plaintiff was seeking, Defendant should have provided a response based on that understanding.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED.

Sanctions

“Except as provided in subdivision (j), 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 further response to a demand, 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.” (CCP § 2031.310(h).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,360, representing 3 hours to prepare the motion, 1 hour to prepare the reply, and 1 hour to appear at the hearing, all at a rate of $260/hour, plus a $60 filing fee.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.