Case Number: KC067496 Hearing Date: July 26, 2018 Dept: O

Deyarmond v. Ley Drew, Inc., et al. (KC067496)

Defendant Ley Drew, Inc.’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Ley Drew, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set two is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses within 10 days. Reduced sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,000.00, payable within 30 days.

Defendant Ley Drew, Inc. moves to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set two pursuant to CCP 2031.010.

CCP 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP 2031.310(b).)

The request seeks documents that support Plaintiff’s second cause of action for disgorgement of construction funds. The court finds Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and evasive.

Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP 2030.220(a),(b).) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (CCP 2030.220(c).) “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. (CCP 2031.230.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses within 10 days.

Sanctions: CCP 2030.310(d) authorizes the court to impose a sanction against any party/attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, 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.

Here, sanctions are appropriate because Plaintiff served incomplete and evasive responses to discovery. The court finds Defendant’s total request of $3,899.33 is excessive. Accordingly, reduced sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the sum of $2,000.00, payable within 30 days.