Case Number: BC528870 Hearing Date: August 31, 2018 Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 7

Date: 8/31/18

Case No: BC 528870 Trial Date: October 22, 2018

Case Name: Davis v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

DISCOVERY MOTION

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jason Craig Davis

Responding Party: Defendant The Regents of the University of California (No Opposition)

RULING:

[No opposition]

Plaintiff Jason Davis’ Motion to Compel Defendant The Regents of the University of California to Provide Responses to Supplemental Demand for Identification, Inspection and Copying of Documents and Tangible Things is GRANTED. Defendant The Regents of the University of California is ordered to serve responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,860.00 [$4,710 requested] are awarded against defendant The Regents of the University of California and defendant’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Request for evidence, issue and terminating sanctions is denied.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Supplemental Demand for Identification, Inspection and Copying of Documents

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served : June 19, 2018

Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED

Date Motion served: August 2, 2018 Timely

OPPOSITION:

No opposition.

ANALYSIS:

Under CCP section 2031.050 (a), a party “may propound a supplemental demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things, land or other property…” Such a supplemental demand may be propounded “twice before the initial setting of a trial date,” and “once after the initial setting of a trial date.” CCP § 2031.050 (b).

Under CCP § 2031.300, “if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it,” that party “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” Under subdivision (b), “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

In this case, a supplemental document production demand has been directed to defendant and defendant failed to timely respond. Plaintiff has appropriately moved for an order to compel. Accordingly, defendant has waived all objections, and should be ordered to respond.

The motion also seeks evidence, issue and terminating sanctions, which appear premature here. The motion is denied.

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions.

With respect to document demands, under CCP § 2031.300(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling…”

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct….If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

In this case, defendant has failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery and plaintiff has provided evidence that plaintiff has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motion is unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Plaintiff requests $4,710, which is excessive for this type of motion, which should not have required the involvement of two sets of counsel. In addition, since there is no opposition, no time should be required to respond to it. Some significantly reduced portion of the sanctions are awarded. The court awards $1,800 for attorney’s fees for 6 total hours at $300.00 per hour plus $60.00 filing fee for a total of $1,860.00.