Case Number: BC650138 Hearing Date: August 07, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MOTION DENIED

On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff Beverlee Cooke (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Vanram Sahakyan (erroneously sued as Sahakyan Vanram) (“Defendant”) for negligence relating to a February 22, 2015 automobile accident in which Defendant was providing an Uber ride to Plaintiff.

On July 6, 2017, Defendant served Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Wendy C. Skillman, ¶ 5; Exh. A.) Defendant granted two extensions on responses. (Skillman Decl., ¶ 9.) On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff responded with an electronic link to One Drive containing 100 pages of documents. Signed verifications were received on September 19, 2017. (Skillman Decl., ¶ 10.) On September 21, 2017, Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding the lack of documents supporting Plaintiff’s loss of earnings claim. (Skillman Decl., ¶ 11.) Defense counsel sent additional meet and confer letters on October 24, 2017 and on March 19, 2018. (Skillman Decl., ¶¶ 10, 11.) Defendant moves to compel “adequate” responses to Request for Production Nos. 5-7, regarding Plaintiff’s lost wages claim, and monetary sanctions. (Skillman Decl., ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff argues this motion to compel should have been brought as a motion to compel further responses, as responses were served last year. The Court agrees that Plaintiff served responses to Requests for Production and Defendant had 45 days to file this motion to compel further responses.

Upon receipt of responses to discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses are evasive or incomplete, an objection is without merit or too general. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a).) A motion for an order compelling further responses shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with CCP § 2016.040 (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), 2033.290, subd. (b)), and notice of the motion shall be given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing, or the party requesting the order waives any right to compel further responses (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c)).

A motion requesting an order compelling further responses to a demand for production of documents must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) If good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

This Motion was untimely filed, is not accompanied by a separate statement, and does not establish good cause justifying the discovery sought. Accordingly, this Motion to compel is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. The court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to a document 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. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.330, subd. (c).) Defendant brought this motion without substantial justification, as it is both substantively and procedurally improper.

Monetary sanctions are imposed against Defendant and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $650.00, for one hour at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.