Case Number: 18STCV06098 Hearing Date: November 04, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One); Request for Sanctions

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On November 21, 2018, Plaintiff La-Jaee Revels (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Ralphs, The Kroger Co., and DOES 1-100, asserting a cause of action for premises liability.

On January 24, 2019, Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the complaint.

On August 26, 2019, the Court held an IDC. The Court’s Minute Order provides, in pertinent part, that “the result of the conference is resolved as to all issues.”

Trial is set for May 20, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 1-5, 11-17, 21, and 23-24. Defendant also requests an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, Brown, Brown & Brown, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,035.00.

Defendant also seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11. In connection with this motion to compel, Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $1,035 against Plaintiff and her attorneys of record.

In its third motion to compel, Defendant seeks further answers to Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 12.2, 12.3, 12.7, and 14.1. In addition, Defendant seeks an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,035 against Plaintiff and her attorneys of record.

LEGAL STANDARD

C.C.P. §2031.310 provides, in pertinent part , as follows:

(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(h) Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

DISCUSSION

Motion to Compel Responses to Document Requests

Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs (“Defendant”) asks the Court to compel Plaintiff La-Jaee Revels (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 1-5, 11-17, 21, and 23-24, Special Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11, and Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 12.2, 12.3, 12.7, and 14.1.

Defendant’s motions to compel further are moot. Plaintiff served verified supplemental responses to all pertinent discovery requests, on October 22, 2019, before the hearing on the instant motions. (Declarations of Brown ¶2; Exhibits 1 attached to each.)

Because Plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with the response deadlines agreed to by the parties or to communicate a need for additional time, he forced Defendant filed three needless motions to compel. Accordingly, sanctions are justified. That said, the amount of sanctions sought by defendant is excessive. The court grants defendant sanctions in the amount of against Plaintiff and her counsel, Brown, Brown & Brown, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $450 (representing 2 hours of attorney time at $195.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 motion fee), for each nearly identical motion.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions to compel further are DENIED as moot. Defendant’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED against Plaintiff and her counsel, Brown, Brown & Brown, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,350, to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Defendant is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.