2016-00193129-CU-PO

Patrick Bringas vs. Joy Florentino

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Wyatt, Russell A.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to his Requests for Production of Documents, set two, is unopposed and is granted.

No later than February 9, 2018, Defendant Joy Florentino is ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, set two, as requested in the moving papers.

The lack of opposition compels the result. A privilege claimant has the initial burden of proving the preliminary facts to show the privilege applies. (Story v Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1007.)

Monetary sanctions are denied because the motion was not opposed. Although California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if a motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statute governing this discovery (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310), authorizes sanctions only if the motion was

unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the California Rules of Court must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v Firmaterr, Inc.

(1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.)