Case Name: DrVita, Inc. v. Oracle America, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 2015-1-CV-278176

Currently before the Court are the following motions: (1) plaintiff and cross-defendant DrVita, Inc.’s (“DrVita”) demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) of defendant and cross-complainant Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”); (2) DrVita’s motion to compel production of documents; and (3) Oracle’s motion to compel DrVita to provide further responses to special interrogatories (“SI”) and requests for production of documents (“RPD”) and production of documents.

I. Factual Background

This is an action arising from a contract dispute. In the operative third amended complaint (“TAC”), DrVita alleges the following: In 2013, DrVita, a company selling health supplements, sought to replace its existing web commerce website to maximize its sales. (TAC, ¶ 10.) Oracle, a software company, represented to DrVita that its web commerce software, ATG, “worked and functioned.” (TAC, ¶ 11.) Based on this representation, DrVita and Oracle entered into a contract (the “Master Agreement”) under which Oracle agreed to provide a license to use the ATG software and technical support. (TAC, ¶¶ 12-14.) In addition, based on Oracle’s recommendation, DrVita retained Trans American Information Systems, Inc. (“TAIS”) to handle the implementation and integration of the software. (TAC, ¶ 18.) From the time the ATG software was installed and integrated into DrVita’s computer system, significant and continuous glitches arose that severely crippled its web commerce business. (FAC, ¶ 20.) In the TAC, DrVita asserts four causes of action against Oracle for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement/fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and restitution.

In its operative FACC, Oracle alleges the following: Under the terms of the Master Agreement, Oracle’s obligation to provide technical support services would expire after one year, but could be renewed at DrVita’s option. (FACC, ¶ 6.) Before the expiration of this obligation, Oracle sent DrVita an offer to provide technical support for an additional year in return for $61,973.52. (FACC, ¶ 7.) DrVita agreed to the terms of the offer by sending to Oracle and/or approving the purchase order. (FACC, ¶ 12.) DrVita has since refused to pay the agreed-upon amount. (FACC, ¶ 26.) The FACC asserts a single cause of action for breach of contract against DrVita.

II. Demurrer to the FACC

On June 30, DrVita filed a demurrer to the FACC on the grounds of uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) – (f).) Oracle filed its opposition on August 10, 2016. On August 16, 2016, DrVita filed its reply.

A. Request for Judicial Notice

In connection with its demurrer to the FACC, DrVita asks the Court to take judicial notice of the original cross-complaint and the FACC. The request is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d) [stating that a court may take judicial notice of court records].)

B. Uncertainty

DrVita contends that the FACC is uncertain because the purchase order attached as an exhibit is dated February 28, 2012, more than two years before DrVita allegedly entered into the contract.

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a [pleading] is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising the defendant of the issues he or she is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 fn. 2; Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135 [stating that a demurrer for uncertainty should be sustained only where the pleading is so incomprehensible that the opposing party cannot reasonably respond].)

Here, the date of the purchase order does not render the FACC so incomprehensible that DrVita cannot reasonably respond. In particular, the FACC explains that the date on the purchase order is a typographical error. (FACC, ¶ 12.) Since the FACC clarifies this ambiguity, the demurrer to the FACC on the ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED.

C. Failure to State Sufficient Facts

DrVita argues that the FACC fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action because Oracle’s allegations concerning its acceptance of the technical support renewal offer are inconsistent with the exhibits attached to the FACC and the original cross-complaint.

1. Inconsistency with Exhibits

DrVita asserts that the purchase order accepting the technical support renewal offer is inconsistent with the allegation that DrVita actually accepted this offer. In particular, it notes that the purchase order is dated February 2012, but the renewal offer is dated December 2013. As such, DrVita contends that it could not have accepted the offer via an instrument that predates the offer. DrVita, however, ignores Oracle’s alleged interpretation of the purchase order, namely, that the date written on the purchase order was a typographical error. (FACC, ¶ 12; see also Aragon-Haas v. Family Security Ins. Services, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal App 3d 232, 239 [stating that “a general demurrer to the complaint admits not only the contents of the instrument but also any pleaded meaning to which the instrument is reasonably susceptible”].) Accordingly, the date of the purchase order fails to demonstrate that DrVita could not have accepted the offer and, therefore, the FACC is not subject to demurrer on this basis.

2. Inconsistency with the Original Cross-Complaint

DrVita claims that the allegation in the FACC that DrVita agreed to the terms of the technical support contract by sending to Oracle, and/or approving, a purchase order is inconsistent with the cross-complaint, which only stated that DrVita agreed to the terms of the contract by sending Oracle the purchase order. (Compare Cross-Compl., ¶ 12 with FACC, ¶ 12.)

Generally, a court must assume the truth of the factual allegations of a complaint and is required to draw all inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant. (Owens v. Kings Supermarket (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 379, 383; Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.) “However, an exception exists where a party files an amended complaint and seeks to avoid the defects of a prior complaint either by omitting the facts that rendered the complaint defective or by pleading facts inconsistent with the allegations of prior pleadings. In these circumstances, the policy against sham pleading permits the court to take judicial notice of the prior pleadings and requires that the pleader explain the inconsistency. If he fails to do so the court may disregard the inconsistent allegations and read into the amended complaint the allegations of the superseded complaint.” (Owens, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d at pp. 382-384, internal citations omitted.)

Nevertheless, the sham pleading doctrine is limited in scope. “It is intended to enable courts to prevent an abuse of process.” (Larson v. UHS of Rancho Springs, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 336, 344, internal citations omitted.) “It is not a rule … which is intended to prevent honest complainants from correcting erroneous allegations of generic terms which may have legal implications but which are also loosely used by laymen or to prevent the correction of ambiguous statements of fact.” (Contreras v. Blue Cross of California (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 945, 950, internal citations omitted.)

Here, DrVita fails to establish that the allegation that it either sent Oracle the purchase order or subsequently approved that order is inconsistent with the allegations of the original cross-complaint. The FACC merely clarifies that Oracle presently does not know whether DrVita actually sent the purchase order or whether DrVita approved the order by other means. Since there is no inconsistency, the Court will not disregard these allegations in the FACC.
In any event, any inconsistency between these allegations would not render the FACC subject to demurrer because Oracle is not required to allege the exact manner in which DrVita accepted the contract. To plead the existence of a contract, “[t]he plaintiff need only allege the ultimate fact of the making of the contract by the defendant and himself.” (Pfaff v. Fair-Hipsley, Inc. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 274, 279; see also Security Mut. Cas. Co. v. Transport Indem. Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1014 [same].) Here, the FACC alleges the ultimate fact that the parties entered into the alleged technical support contract. (FACC, ¶ 24.) As such, the FACC is not subject to demurrer on this basis.

3. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, DrVita’s demurrer to the FACC on the ground of failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action is OVERRULED.

III. DrVita’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents

On December 17, 2015, DrVita served Oracle with a set of RPD. On February 1, 2016, Oracle served responses consisting of both objections and substantive responses. A month later, Oracle produced 5,000 documents via regular mail and compact disc.

On May 3, 2016, DrVita’s former counsel sent an e-mail to opposing counsel, in which he indicated that Oracle failed to label the documents produced in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure and sought additional responses identifying the particular documents responsive to each request. Oracle’s counsel replied to the e-mail by stating that it would not provide additional responses.

Despite additional meet and confer efforts, the parties were unable to resolve the dispute. On June 30, 2016, DrVita filed the instant motion to compel production of documents. On August 10, 2016, Oracle filed its opposition, in which it requests monetary sanctions. DrVita filed its reply on August 16, 2016.

A. Nature of the Motion

Preliminarily, DrVita does not specify whether the instant motion is one to compel Oracle to provide further responses to the RPD or to produce documents in accordance with its responses to the RPD.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, a party may move to compel a further response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling if: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection is without merit or too general. The purpose of this motion is to obtain a court order requiring a further response which identifies the available, non-privileged documents and a corresponding agreement to produce them. (Standon v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903.) Once an adequate response has been obtained, a party may move to compel the actual production of documents in compliance with the response under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320.

Here, DrVita’s motion concerns the manner in which Oracle produced the documents at issue rather than the sufficiency of Oracle’s response. Accordingly, the Court will construe the instant motion as one to compel compliance with Oracle’s responses to the RPD.

B. Legal Standards

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, “[i]f a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling … thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.) All that has to be shown is that the responding party failed to comply with an agreement to produce. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a); Standon v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903.)

In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280 specifies the manner in which documents responsive to a request for production must be produced. As a general rule, “[a]ny documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall either be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).) However, with respect to electronically stored information, “[i]f a demand for production does not specify a form or forms for producing a type of electronically stored information, the responding party shall produce the information in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (d).)

C. Analysis

Without citation to any evidence, DrVita asserts that Oracle did not produce the documents responsive to the RPD as they are kept in the ordinary course of business and requests that the Court order Oracle to organize and label the documents to correspond with the categories in the demand. In opposition, Oracle claims that it complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280 by producing the electronically stored information in a reasonably usable form. Oracle’s argument is well-taken.

The RPD at issue do not specify a particular form for the production of electronically stored information. As such, the documents could be produced electronically as long as they were in provided in a reasonably usable form. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (d).) Here, Oracle submits evidence indicating that the documents produced are fully searchable and include metadata permitting DrVita to determine without much effort each document’s source, author, date, subject, type, recipients, and Bates number. (Hughes Decl., ¶ 3.) Therefore, Oracle establishes that it complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280 and an order compelling Oracle to organize and label the documents to correspond with categories in the demand is unwarranted.

In light of the foregoing, the motion to compel document production is DENIED.

IV. Oracle’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to the SI and RPD and
Production of Documents

As relevant here, Oracle served DrVita with two sets of RPD and a set of SI between December 2015 and February 2016. DrVita provided responses to each set of discovery, consisting of both objections and substantive responses. After the parties began the meet and confer process, DrVita served supplemental responses to the RPD, but not the SI.

On May 27, 2016, Oracle’s counsel sent a detailed meet and confer letter to opposing counsel, indicating that DrVita’s objections lacked merit, its substantive responses to the discovery were insufficient, and it failed to produce documents in the proper format. In response, DrVita’s counsel stated that its objections were justified, its substantive responses were sufficient, it provided all documents in its possession, and it produced those documents in the format it uses in the ordinary course of business.

Despite additional efforts to meet and confer, the parties were unable to resolve the dispute informally. Accordingly, on July 1, 2016, Oracle filed the instant motion to compel further responses to the SI and RPD and to produce documents, in which it seeks monetary sanctions. DrVita filed its opposition on August 5, 2016, in which it requests monetary sanctions. On August 10, 2016, Oracle filed its reply.

In its motion, Oracle asks the Court to issue an order compelling DrVita to provide further responses to the RPD and SI without objections, documents in accordance with those requests, and code-compliant verifications and to produce several missing attachments referenced in already produced documents and native files of documents.

A. Meet and Confer

Preliminarily, DrVita asserts that the motion should be denied because Oracle failed to meet and confer in good faith.

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and/or requests for production of documents shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) The rule requiring parties to meet and confer is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order” which, in turn, “will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Townsend v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) The level of effort at informal resolution that satisfies the “reasonable and good faith attempt” standard depends on the circumstances of the case. (Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

DrVita first argues that Oracle did not meet and confer in good faith because its counsel did not detail in its motion the additional efforts by the parties to resolve the dispute informally. This argument lacks merit because a party moving to compel further responses is merely required to provide a declaration showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of the issues presented by the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) There is no requirement that the moving party identify each and every meet and confer attempt in its moving papers.

Next, DrVita contends that Oracle’s May 27, 2016 meet and confer letter is not sufficiently detailed. Having reviewed the letter, the Court finds that Oracle presented its positions with sufficient detail to satisfy its obligation to meet and confer. Moreover, the parties engaged in additional meet and confer efforts in which Oracle clearly identified its legal and factual positions.

Finally, DrVita claims that Oracle did not meet and confer in good faith because its counsel requested supplemental responses to be provided within a single day in February 2016. This argument is not well-taken. A review of the correspondence between the parties indicates that Oracle withdrew this demand after opposing counsel agreed to extend the time for Oracle to file a motion to compel further responses.

In sum, the Court finds that Oracle adequately met and conferred before filing this motion.

B. SI

Oracle moves to compel further responses to SI Nos. 18-20 on the grounds that DrVita’s objections lack merit and its substantive responses are incomplete and evasive.

1. Legal Standards

A party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling further responses if that party deems an objection is without merit or too general and/or a response is evasive or incomplete. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) The burden is on the responding party to justify any objections. (Coy v. Sup. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

2. Objections

While DrVita asserts several objections to the SI, it makes no attempt to justify them in its opposition. These objections are, therefore, overruled. (See Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220-221 [stating that the burden is on responding party to justify objections].)
3. Substantive Responses

SI Nos. 18-20 asked DrVita to specify each statement made by Oracle employees, Mark Steele, Jeanna Hayden, and Jon Secord, that it alleges was a misrepresentation, including the verbatim content of each statement, its specific date, and to whom the statement was made. In response to each interrogatory, DrVita referred to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 and provided a general summary of the misrepresentations Oracle purportedly made to it.

DrVita’s responses are incomplete and evasive on several grounds. First, DrVita did not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. That section provides that it is a sufficient answer to an interrogatory to refer to the section and to specify documents from which the answer to the interrogatory may be obtained, if the answer would necessitate the preparation of a “compilation, abstract, audit, or summary” and the burden of preparing one would be substantially the same for the propounding and responding parties. Here, DrVita’s responses do not specify the documents from which Oracle could obtain the answers to the interrogatories with sufficient detail to permit Oracle to locate and identify them. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230 [stating that the specification of documents “shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained”]; see also Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 784 [providing that a broad statement that the information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient to invoke section 2030.230].) Second, DrVita’s answers do not respond to the call of the questions, namely, that DrVita specify the exact misrepresentations each Oracle employee made and the individuals to whom they made these misrepresentations. Accordingly, the responses to SI Nos. 18-20 are incomplete and evasive and further responses are warranted.

C. RPD

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses

Oracle moves to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 1-58 on the grounds that DrVita’s objections lack merit and its substantive responses are incomplete and evasive.

a. Legal Standards

A party propounding a request for production of documents may move for an order compelling a further response if it deems that a statement of compliance with a request is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is incomplete, or an objection to the response is without merit or too general. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subds. (a)(1)-(3).) The motion must set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Good cause is established by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 98.) Discovery is allowed for any matters that are not privileged, relevant to the subject matter involved in the action, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally with any doubt generally resolved in favor of discovery. (Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.) Moreover, for discovery purposes, information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. (Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) If good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 98.)

b. Good Cause

Here, it is readily apparent, and DrVita does not contest, that each RPD is relevant to the subject matter of this action. In this respect, RPD Nos. 1-5, 7-12, 16-17, and 21-23, which seek documents relating to particular allegations in the operative complaint, might reasonably assist Oracle in determining the factual support for DrVita’s claims. RPD Nos. 6 and 24, which request the contract with DrVita’s current website developer and all contracts related to the ATG software, could assist Oracle in calculating the potential damages at issue. RPD No. 13, which seeks the TAIS contract, might assist Oracle in determining whether TAIS was responsible for resolving the alleged website disruptions rather than itself. RPD Nos. 14-15, 25-33, concerning communications regarding the functionality of the ATG software and DrVita’s website, could assist Oracle in testing DrVita’s allegations with respect to the purported inadequacy of the software. RPD No. 18, seeking documents relating to Oracle’s alleged statements before the execution of the Master Agreement, might aid Oracle in discovering evidence concerning DrVita’s fraud causes of action. RPD Nos. 34-37, concerning documents related to the requirements for DrVita’s website and change orders, could help Oracle test DrVita’s allegations that it breached its contract by failing to meet the website’s requirements. RPD Nos. 38-47, and 49, which seek documents and communications concerning the testing of DrVita’s implementation of the ATG software, the decision to open the website for customers, its failure to function, and the decision to stop using the software, might assist Oracle in determining whether the website failed, the cause of the failure, and its potential liability for the failure. RPD Nos. 48 and 50-55, which seek DrVita’s income statements and the performance data for DrVita’s website, could help Oracle test DrVita’s allegation that the failure of the website software caused a decline in its income. RPD Nos. 56-57, which request changes in prices and shipping terms, could assist Oracle in establishing that any decline in DrVita’s income was due to factors other than the glitches in the ATG software. Finally, RPD No. 58, which seeks documents regarding damages accruing from the licensing of other Oracle software, might help Oracle demonstrate that DrVita’s requested damages are overstated.

In light of the foregoing, good cause exists for the discovery of information responsive to RPD Nos. 1-58.

c. Objections

While DrVita asserts several objections to the RPD, it makes no attempt to justify them in its opposition. The objections are, therefore, overruled. (See Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220-221 [stating that the burden is on responding party to justify objections].)

d. Substantive Responses

The only requests for which substantive responses were provided are RPD Nos. 1-55. Oracle persuasively contends that each of these responses fails to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a)(1)-(2), a party providing a substantive response to a request for production must either state that it will comply with the particular demand or lacks the ability to comply. To the extent the party represents that it is unable to comply, it must state that it performed a diligent search and reasonable inquiry to comply with the demand, specify the reason it cannot comply, and set forth the name and address of any person or entity known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

With respect to RPD Nos. 1-31, 33-35, 38-49, and 51-53, DrVita failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 because it does not state that it will comply with the demands, but merely identifies certain Bates stamped documents. With regard to RPD Nos. 32, 36-37, 50, and 54-55, DrVita violates Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 as it represents that it is unable to comply with the demands without stating that it performed a diligent search and reasonable inquiry to comply with the demand, specifying the reason it cannot comply, and setting forth the name and address of any person or entity known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of the discovery sought.

Accordingly, further responses are warranted as to each of the requests at issue.

2. Production of Documents

Oracle moves to compel DrVita to produce several missing attachments referenced in already produced documents and native files of documents. While Oracle does not specify the statutory basis for this request, it is readily apparent that it is moving to compel compliance with DrVita’s responses to the RPD under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320. As previously discussed, however, DrVita has yet to serve code-compliant responses to each of the RPD at issue and a party may only move to compel compliance once adequate responses are obtained. (See Standon, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 903.) As such, the motion is premature at this time.

D. Verifications

Oracle contends that DrVita failed to provide code-compliant, original verifications to the SI and RPD.

If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production are directed is a corporation, one of its officers or agents is required to sign the responses under oath. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, 2031.250.) The responding party must serve the original verification on the propounding party. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2031.260.) In addition, the verification shall state that the matter “is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) If the verification is made in California, it must state the place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) If executed outside of California, the verification shall provide that it is made under the laws of the State of California. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.)

Here, DrVita did not provide the original verifications to Oracle. (See Hughes Decl., Exs. 5-5A.) In addition, the verifications do not state the place of execution or, to the extent they were signed outside of California, that the responses are true under the laws of the State of California. (See Hughes Decl., Exs. 5-5A.) Accordingly, an order compelling the production of a code-compliant verification for the responses to the RPD and SI is warranted.

E. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Oracle’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED without prejudice as to the request for the production of missing attachments and native files of documents. The motion is otherwise GRANTED.

Accordingly, within 20 days’ of the filing of this court’s order, DrVita shall serve Oracle with code-compliant further responses, without objection, to SI Nos. 18-20 and RPD Nos. 1-58 and produce documents in accordance with those responses. In addition, DrVita shall serve Oracle with code-complaint verifications for those responses.

V. Requests for Monetary Sanctions

Oracle seeks monetary sanctions against DrVita in connection with its motion to compel and its opposition to DrVita’s motion to compel. In turn, DrVita requests monetary sanctions against Oracle in connection with its opposition to Oracle’s motion to compel.

A. Oracle’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions

In connection with its opposition to DrVita’s motion to compel, Oracle requests $6,412.50 in monetary sanctions against DrVita under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), which provides, in pertinent part, that a court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes a motion to compel further responses to a request for production of documents, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust.

Here, DrVita brought a motion to compel Oracle to produce documents in accordance with its responses to the RPD, not a motion to compel further responses. As such, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h) is inapplicable. Since Oracle does not otherwise identify a statutory basis for this request for monetary sanctions, the request is DENIED.

With respect to its motion to compel further responses to the SI and RPD, Oracle seeks $4,500 against DrVita under several statutes.

First, Oracle requests sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), which provides that a court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel initial responses to a request for production of documents, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Here, Oracle brought a motion to compel DrVita to provide further responses to the RPD, not to compel initial responses. As such, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c) is inapplicable.

Next, Oracle seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), which states that a court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Here, DrVita’s opposition to the motion to compel further responses to the SI was unsuccessful, DrVita did not act with substantial justification, and other circumstances do not make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

In support of its request for monetary sanctions, Oracle’s counsel states that he spent more than 12 hours meeting and conferring, performing legal research, drafting the motion, reviewing the opposition and crafting a reply at $375 per hour. (Hughes Reply Decl., ¶ 2.)

As an initial matter, the Court does not award sanctions for expenses parties incur while meeting and conferring. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a); Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.) Consequently, attorney’s fees attributable to those expenses are not compensable. In addition, while the hourly rate of Oracle’s counsel is reasonable, counsel does not indicate how much time he spent preparing the motion to compel further responses to the SI as opposed to the amount of time he spent preparing the motion to compel further responses to the RPD. As such, the Court is not in a position to determine the amount of reasonable expenses Oracle actually incurred in bringing this portion of the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a) [stating that the court may only award reasonable expenses actually incurred].) Accordingly, Oracle’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

B. DrVita’s Request for Monetary Sanctions

DrVita seeks $4,000 in monetary sanctions in connection with its opposition to Oracle’s motion to compel further responses to the SI and RPD under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d) and 2031.310, subdivision (h). Oracle, however, was successful on its motion to compel further responses and therefore DrVita is not entitled to monetary sanctions. Accordingly, DrVita’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.