Case Number: BC716794 Hearing Date: March 20, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

TERENIK KOUJAKIAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SMART & FINAL STORES, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC716794

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

March 20, 2019

This is an action for damages arising out of a trip and fall. At this time, Plaintiff moves to compel production of Defendant’s incident report, which was made in connection with the fall.

The motion is denied without prejudice. The motion is premature. Plaintiff styled the motion as a motion to compel production of the incident report. §2031.300 governs motions to compel initial responses. A motion under this section would be appropriate if Defendant had not responded at all. In this case, Defendant served a response to the demand on 10/26/18, such that a motion to compel an initial response would not be appropriate.

§2031.310 governs motions to compel further responses. A motion to compel further responses is ripe and appropriate where the responding party served responses, and the moving party believes the responses are insufficient. The separate statement served with the moving papers makes clear that Defendant’s response to RPD 3 consists solely of objections. Notably, Plaintiff mis-states the content of §2031.310(a) in his motion. Plaintiff erroneously states that §2031.310(a) permits a party to make a motion “for an order compelling the party responding to the demand to produce the document in question for the reason that the objection to the demand is without merit and too general.” §2031.310(a) actually states, “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…”

The final step in obtaining production is a motion to compel compliance. Such motion is governed by §2031.320, and is only appropriate at such time as the responding party agrees to production, but fails to comply with its own agreement to produce. In this case, Defendant has not served a response agreeing to comply with the demand, and therefore the motion to compel production is denied as premature.

Because the motion is denied, the attendant request for sanctions is also denied.

The Court notes that Defendant does not seek imposition of sanctions in connection with the opposition, and therefore none are imposed.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.