Case Number: BC670334 Hearing Date: January 04, 2019 Dept: 2

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Hilda Trejo to Comply with Promise to Produce Documents, filed on 11/5/18, is GRANTED. An order compelling compliance is no longer necessary as Defendant produced the telephone bill at issue with her opposition. Opposition, Ex. 4. However, imposition of sanctions is warranted as further explained below.

Contrary to Defendant’s argument, this motion is not untimely made. Defendant cites Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2025.480 which governs failures to answer questions or produce documents at a deposition. Under those circumstances, a motion compelling a further response shall be made 60 days after the completion of the deposition record. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2025.480.

Here, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant’s compliance with a demand for inspection where a party fails to permit that inspection according to the party’s statement of compliance. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2031.320(a). The statute does not impose a time limit for making the motion.

On 11/30/18, Defendant served a supplemental response to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents. Motion, Ex. I. Request #4 sought production of “[t]exts, voicemail, social media posts and emails from the morning of April 13, 2017.” Motion, Ex. A, 3:20-21.

Defendant’s supplemental responses stated she would provide documents in her possession of phone records and Facebook activity. Motion, Ex. I, 2:1-2.

Defendant did produce a log of her Facebook Activity from 4/8/17 through 4/16/17. She also produced one page of a telephone bill showing calls from 4/8/17 through 4/14/17, however, as Plaintiff argues, the record does not identify the owner of that telephone number. Id, Bates 036.

At her deposition, Defendant stated that she could produce her telephone bill, and her counsel agreed to produce it. Motion Ex. L, 16:12-24.

While Defendant claims the telephone record is protected by privacy, she did produce her entire telephone bill with her opposition but redacted all information except for calls made on the morning of 4/13/17 as requested by Request for Production of Documents #4. Opposition Exhibit 4. Accordingly, an order compelling Defendant’s compliance is no longer necessary.

The Court imposes sanctions of $1,8750 against Defendant, Hilda Trejo, and her attorney, Cleidin Atanos, for costs incurred in making the motion. Defendant has not shown substantial justification for failing to timely provide the requested documents as Defendant’s response indicated that she would. Defendant did not comply until after Plaintiff was forced to incur expenses to file this motion. Cal. Code Civil Procedure §2031.320(b). Such sanctions are payable within thirty (30) days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.