2012-00619733
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOUCNMENTS

Plaintiff DSS Staffing Inc. moves to compel Defendant PALS LLC to serve initial discovery responses to Plaintiff’s first set for requests for production, which were mail-served on 1/15/14. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. (CCP 2031.300.)

The motion to compel is moot because Defendant represents that it served initial responses on 4/18/14. But the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an award of monetary sanctions. Within 60 calendar days, Defendant shall pay $900.00 to Plaintiff, through Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

Plaintiff DSS Staffing Inc. makes a prima facie showing that on 1/15/14, it mail-served its first set of RFP’s on Defendant PALS LLC. (See generally Pentis Decl. at Ex. A.) Plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the RFP’s sought relevant information and that Defendant failed to timely serve responses, despite several reminders.

In Opposition, Defendant PALS argues that the motion is moot because it served late responses on 4/18/14. The motion to compel is moot, but the request for monetary sanctions may still be granted.

PALS argues that the Court should not impose sanctions because there was substantial justification for the delay. PALS argues that former counsel James Culp mistakenly told new counsel that the entire action was stayed due to the bankruptcy of Defendant Kenia Davalos, so that only informal discovery was permitted.

Defendant argues that it also interpreted the order to apply only to informal discovery, because it would be unfair and burdensome to permit formal discovery to proceed. In the absence of Davalos, parties may have to conduct duplicative discovery if and when she is available to participate.

In Reply, Plaintiff notes correctly that attorney Deana Deaztlan from the office of Toni Deaztlan was present along with James Culp at the 10/25/13 hearing, so the Deaztlan firm did not need to rely on Culp’s interpretation.

Furthermore, the Court’s 10/25/13 minute order does not state that only informal discovery may proceed. And Defendant presents no hearing transcript or written stipulation to prove that the parties or the Court agreed to stay formal discovery and allow only informal discovery to proceed.

Plaintiff notes correctly that by serving discovery on DSS Staffing on 4/17/14, the Deaztlan firm undercuts its contention that formal discovery was stayed.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant had no substantial justification for failing to timely respond to discovery. The Court also finds that there are no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Plaintiff shall serve notice of this ruling.