2009-00053260-CU-PP

Angela Reddy vs. Kami Reddy

Nature of Proceeding:    Motion to Compel Compliance with Documents Demanded

Filed By:  Goldstein, Samuel E.

Before the court is a motion to compel production of certain documents and a request
for monetary sanctions.  As explained below, the motion to compel appears to be
moot, and the request for sanctions is denied.

On August 5, 2013, Plaintiff Angela Reddy (“Plaintiff”) served a demand for inspection
of documents on Defendant Kami Reddy (“Defendant”).  The demand was served on
Defendant’s counsel.  Less than three weeks later, on August 22, 2013, a substitution
of attorney was filed, notifying all parties that Defendant would be representing herself.

As of the date this motion was filed (November 27, 2013), Defendant had provided no
response to the demand.

On August 12, 2013, this court issued the following order:

Kami Reddy shall cooperate with the sale of the Property
by providing such records in her possession relating to
such sale to Angela Reddy within seven days of such
request.

(Order Granting Motion to Appoint Angela Reddy to Sell Property.)  On or about
September 18, 2013, Plaintiff emailed Defendant requesting certain profit and loss
statements, tax returns, and income statements, “As per court order.”  (Goldstein
Decl., Ex. 6.)  As of the date this motion was filed, no documents had been produced. In addition to seeking an order compelling Defendant to respond to discovery and
produce the requested documents, Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of
$2,500.

Defendant does not oppose the motion to compel.  In response to the motion, she has
filed both her response to the demand for inspection of documents (Ex. D), and at
least some of the documents (Exs. B, C, D).  The response and documents are
attached to what Defendant refers to as an “Addendum.”

In her reply brief, which was filed one day late, Plaintiff complains about the method by
which the Addendum was served.  Plaintiff never suggests she did not receive the
Addendum.  Instead, she complains it was served by fax even though she has not
agreed to accept service by fax.  She also complains it was served by priority mail,
rather than by a method “reasonably calculated to ensure deliver to the other party or
parties not later than the close of the next business day….”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005,
subd. (c).)  Although the Addendum was served by priority mail rather than overnight
mail, the court notes it was served on Friday, December 13, and received by Plaintiff’s
counsel on Monday, December 16, which is the next business day.  (Supp. Decl.
Goldstein ¶ 11.)  The court thus finds Defendant substantially complied with the
service requirements.

In her reply, Plaintiff also complains the Addendum is “wholly inadequate” but does not
explain why.  If Plaintiff believes the response to the demand is inadequate, she may
file a motion to compel a further response after making a reasonable and good faith
effort to informally resolve the issue.  In attempting to informally resolve any
outstanding issues, both parties would do well to heed the admonition of the court in
th
Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4   1277, that “attempting informal resolution
means more than the mere attempt by the discovery proponent to persuade the
objector of the error of his ways” and that a “reasonable and good faith attempt at
informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [the other side] . . . .
Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their
views, consult, and deliberate.”  (Id. at 1294 [internal cites and quotes omitted].)

Although Defendant does not oppose the motion, she does oppose the request for
sanctions.  As justification for her failure to respond to the document requests, she
states she has suffered from extreme health problems since mid-September 2013.

Plaintiff argues sanctions are mandatory in this case, citing only Code of Civil
Procedure section 2031.300(c).  Section 2031.300(c) provides “the court shall impose
a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection . . .
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.”  (Emphasis
added.)  Here, Defendant does not oppose the motion to compel at all, much less
unsuccessfully.  Section 2031.300(c) thus does not authorize sanctions in this case.
Assuming Plaintiff meant to cite Rule 3.1348 of the California Rules of Court – “The
court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a
motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed . . . or
the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed” –
the court notes such sanctions are discretionary, and it declines to award them.