Case Number: BC659486 Hearing Date: June 14, 2018 Dept: 51

Plaintiffs Christopher Charles Harris and Lecia L. Shorter’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents is GRANTED.

There was no response to this discovery request and no substantive basis for opposition, and the motion is therefore meritorious.

Defendant’s counsel’s opposition mostly consists of declaration explaining his health problems, and the Court is sympathetic. Nevertheless, counsel needs to find time to communicate in at least a cursory manner about his cases if he faces ongoing illnesses (for example, by communicating that he is ill and perhaps providing a date that he will be responding to discovery and a clear extension date for a motion to compel.)

As well, the Court notes that here the responses were due on April 9, 2018, and, focusing only on this specific time frame, counsel states that he was taken ill on April 5, given antibiotics, and “appeared to become better a few days later.” He did not become ill again until April 19. (See Weiser Declaration at paragraphs 25 to 30.) This motion was filed on May 10.

Thus, even per counsel’s account, there thus appears to have been time between roughly the due date of the discovery on April 9 (that is, a “few days” after April 5) and April 19 for him to focus some effort on this case while not particularly ill.

Defendant is correct that self-represented plaintiffs do not receive attorney fees as a sanction. The Court awards as a sanction on defendant’s counsel the $125 in costs requested. This amount is ordered paid from defendant’s counsel to plaintiffs within 14 days.

Response to the requests are ordered within 21 days.

Plaintiffs Christopher Charles Harris and Lecia L. Shorter’s motion to compel compliance with demand to inspect premises is GRANTED.

The basis for potential opposition is found on page 13 of the opposition, for some reason buried under the heading concerning self-represented plaintiffs not being entitled to attorney fees.

The opposition asserts that the premises are “closed and undergoing renovation” and that “[t]he inspection would be dangerous given the construction work and is only meant to harass. . . .” Plaintiffs allegedly can take pictures of the property from outside of a gate to the property.

There is no evidence to support these opposition claims. Construction work typically does not go 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Premises under construction typically can be visited in some fashion without hazard, even if there are some areas that may be inaccessible.

The inspection is ordered to occur within 21 days.

Moving parties to give notice.