Case Number: GC049845    Hearing Date: November 07, 2014    Dept: B

NOTICE: Department B will be dark on November 7, 2014. Please review the following tentative ruling. If you wish to have oral argument, please contact opposing counsel and agree upon one of the following dates for argument: November 21 or December 5. Then, please send an email to lmcfarlane@lacourt.org stating your case number, the agreed upon date for argument, and which party will give notice. The email must be received by 4:30 p.m. on November 7, 2014, or the Court’s tentative ruling will be the ruling and order of the Court. You may also send an email if you submit to the tentative ruling.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion for Order compelling Plaintiff to produce documents

This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant, Pasadena Auto Dealer, Inc., breached an agreement by failing to repay a line of credit and that Defendants, Mohammad Ebrahimi, and Nabila Ebrahimi, breached an agreement to guaranty the performance of Pasadena Auto Dealer, Inc.

Trial is set for December 1, 2014.

At this hearing, the Defendant, Mohammad Ebrahimi, seeks an order compelling the Plaintiff to produce documents. However, it cannot be determined from the moving papers that the Plaintiff has agreed to produce documents in any responses because the motion is not accompanied by any declarations, exhibits, or evidence.

Further, the Defendant cited to and discussed CCP section 2031.310, which is authority to compel further responses to requests for production. It cannot be determined whether the Defendant is seeking to compel documents or to compel further responses.

If the Defendant was seeking an order compelling the production of documents in accordance with the Plaintiff’s statement of compliance in a response, then the Defendant should have sought relief under CCP section 2031.320, which authorizes the Court to order a responding party to produce documents when the responding party fails to produce documents in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance. However, the Defendant has not demonstrated that he is entitled to any relief because he has not provided evidence that he propounded requests for production, that the Plaintiff stated that it would produce documents in its responses, or that the Plaintiff did not produce any documents.

Accordingly, the Defendant has not demonstrated that he is entitled to any relief under CCP section 2031.320.

If the Defendant is seeking an order compelling further responses, then the Defendant is seeking relief under CCP section 2031.310. The Defendant has not complied with any of its requirements, e.g., that he file the motion within 45 days from service of the responses, that he accompany the motion with a declaration including facts showing that he made a good faith attempt to meet and confer in an informal attempt to resolve the discovery dispute, or that his declaration set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought in his requests for production. Further, the Defendant has not accompanied his motion with a separate statement, as required under CRC rule 3.1345. Finally, the Defendant has not identified any discovery response that was incomplete or that contained unmerited objections.

Accordingly, the Defendant has not demonstrated that he is entitled to any relief under CCP section 2031.310.

Therefore, the Court must deny the Defendant’s motion because he has not demonstrated that he is entitled to any relief.

In its opposition, the Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions under CCP section 2023.030 for the misuse of discovery. Under CCP section 2023.010, it is a misuse of discovery to use a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures, to make a motion to compel without substantial justification, and to fail to make a good faith attempt to resolve a dispute informally when required.

Here, the Defendant filed a motion without complying with the specified procedures for seeking relief under CCP section 2031.320 or 2031.310. Further, the Defendant’s motion is made without substantial justification because he offered no evidence that he was entitled to any relief. Also, the Defendant did not demonstrate that he made a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute informally, as required under CCP section 2031.310.

Accordingly, there are grounds to impose monetary sanctions on the Defendant for his misuse of discovery.

The Plaintiff’s attorney, Tom Normandin, states in his declaration that he expects to bill 7 hours at $350 per hour on the opposition. Accordingly the court orders Defendants to pay Plaintiff $2450 as and for attorney’s fees for defending this motion, payable within 30 days.