16-CIV-02828 MARTA CLAROS, ET AL. VS. SOMERS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC., ET AL.

MARTA CLAROS SBM SITE SERVICES LLC
ARLO GARCIA URIARTE NICK C. GEANNACOPULOS

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL BY SBM SITE SERVICES LLC TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses is MOOT. Plaintiffs served objections on January 10, 2019, substantive responses on February 15, 2019 and verifications on February 22, 2019. There are no acts for the Court to compel. The sufficiency of the objections and responses are not at issue in the present motion since the motion is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 and not 2030.300 or 2031.310. (See Notice of Motion.)

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents is DENIED. A motion to compel production of documents is proper when a party responds that he will comply with the request, but then fails to do so. (Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.320.) That is not the ground for this motion (See Notice of Motion); section 2031.320 is inapplicable. The only ground that this motion offers for compelling a production of documents is that Plaintiffs have not responded. That is not a ground to compel production. Since there is no showing that Plaintiffs failed to permit an inspection of documents “in accordance with [their] statement of compliance,” the Court cannot order Plaintiffs to produce documents.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied because Plaintiffs acted with substantial justification. The parties agreed to a 3week deadline extension conditioned on Plaintiffs’ authorizing release of their medical records. After a disagreement arose concerning the wording of the authorization, Defendants imposed a January 10, 2019 deadline. (Email from Loomis to Iannitelli, January 9, 2019, Exhibit S to Moving Declaration of Loomis.) Plaintiffs complied by serving their objections on January 10, 2019. Although Plaintiffs served the objections 3 days after the original January 7, 2019 deadline, they were reasonably relying on the 3week extension of time Defendants granted. Further, when Defendants imposed the January 10 deadline, Plaintiffs complied.

Defendants were aware that one law firm represented all four plaintiffs. Aware of this, Defendants served 12 sets of discovery on them. Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time was reasonable. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant should be sanctioned because Defendant failed to meetand-confer before filing this motion. The request has no merit. Meeting and conferring applies when responses are deficient and the requesting party moves to compel supplemental responses. (See, e. g., Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 2030.300, subd. (b) & 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) In contrast, when a motion seeks to compel responses (i.e., no responses at all were served), then there is no meet-and-confer requirement. (Id. sect. 2030.290 & 2031.300.) The present motion is to compel responses. No meet-and-confer is necessary.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.