Case Number: EC060738 Hearing Date: May 02, 2014 Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING (5-2-14)
#5
EC 060738
OMS GLOBAL v. ONEWEST BANK

Defendant Meridian Foreclosure Service’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories
Defendant Meridian Foreclosure Service’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Second Set of Special Interrogatories
Defendant Meridian Foreclosure Service’s Motion to Order Compelling Further Responses to First Request for Production of Documents

TENTATIVE:
Motions are moot in light of the representation in the Limited Opposition that plaintiff will be voluntarily providing the further responses requested by Meridian Foreclosure Service in its motions prior to the hearing on this matter.

Monetary sanctions are DENIED. However, the court again reminds plaintiff OMS Global that the Court would not expect to countenance from plaintiff OMS Global, LLC any further inadequate discovery responses of the type evident on this occasion and at the hearing of April 11, 2014.

BACKGROUND:
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff OMS Global, LLC alleges that it was the named beneficiary in a Junior Deed of Trust on property in Los Angeles under its former name, Ramsfire Global, LLC. The Deed of Trust was recorded on May 6, 2010. Plaintiff alleges that on December 4, 2012, defendant Meridian Foreclosure Service, on behalf of defendant Onewest Bank, the beneficiary of a Senior Deed of Trust on the subject property, recorded a Notice of Default, and on March 7, 2013 recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale stating a sale date of March 28, 2013. The Notice stated that to learn whether the sale date had been postponed an interested party could call a stated telephone number or visit an identified internet website. On March 26, 2013, plaintiff checked the website and saw that the sale had been postponed to May 28, 2013. On May 14, 2013, plaintiff again checked the website to be sure the sale had not been postponed again and learned that the trustee’s sale had occurred and the subject property had been sold to defendant GB Inland. Plaintiff alleges that it was interested in bidding on the subject property to protect its junior lien and to acquire the property for use by one of its officers, and had it been given the opportunity plaintiff would have bid more than the winning bid for the property. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Onewest, Meridian, and GB Inland had an agreement to restrain bidding on the subject property by posting that the trustee’s sale was being postponed and then holding the trustee’s sale as originally scheduled in order to keep potential bidders away and permit defendant GB Inland to acquire the subject property.

Similar motions to compel plaintiff to provide further responses to discovery were brought by defendant Onewest Bank, and were heard by the court on April 11, 2014, after the filing of these motions on March 10, and were granted by the court, but sanctions were denied.

ANALYSIS
The Limited Opposition indicates that the further responses requested in the motions will be served prior to the hearing, rendering the motions moot.

This leaves only the issue of sanctions.

Here, a cursory review of the separate statements shows that the responses originally provided were incomplete and evasive, making these motions necessary.

The Limited Opposition argues that the further responses are being provided “in light of the approach of this Court to discovery in this matter, as expressed at the hearing on OneWest Bank’s Motions to compel…,” and requests that since this approach was only made known after the filing of the Meridian motions, the court similarly should not impose sanctions.

The court’s previous order stated:
“On these particular motions under the circumstances, and in the interests of justice, the Court finds that respondent established substantial justification for its inadequate responses to the Request for Production of Documents and Form Interrogatories (Set One). Nonetheless, the Court notes that both motions were obviously meritorious as reflected in the Court’s rulings thereon. The Court would not expect to countenance from plaintiff OMS Global, LLC any further inadequate discovery responses of the type evident on this occasion.”

With the Court’s admonition in mind, consistent with its prior determination, the Court will not award sanctions in connection with this round of discovery. Again, however, the Court would not expect to so rule if there are further failures on the part of OMS Global to respond properly to discovery requests served upon it in the future.