18-CIV-03789 THEODORE RILEY, ET AL. VS. AKIL HASHIM KHALID, ET AL.

THEODORE RILEY AKIL HASHIM KHALID
CARY S. KLETTER

PLAINTIFFS THEODORE RILEY ET. AL.’S “MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Theodore Riley et. al.’s “Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Sanctions,” filed 11-7-19, is DENIED, for multiple reasons.

First, the motion was not properly noticed. Plaintiff did not file a Notice of Motion, but instead filed a document captioned: “Motion to Compel Production of Documents,” the body of which, in fact, does not seek an order compelling the production of documents, but instead seeks to compel “verified responses” to Plaintiff’s document requests. Compare Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310 and 2031.320. The Notice also requests sanctions, but does not identify, as is required, the person/party against whom the sanctions are sought.

Further, the notice defects aside, contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, on 10-4-19, defendant Finance of America Reverse LLC timely served written objections to each of the document requests at issue. See 2-10-20 Ede Decl., Ex. 4. Plaintiff’s moving papers omit this key fact, and they fail to include the required Separate Statement. See CRC 3.1345.

In the Court’s discretion, all requests for sanctions are DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant 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.