Case Name: Randall Shuler et al vs Bradley Kramer et al.
Case No.: 17CV310710

Defendants Bradley Kramer, et al. (“Defendants”) have filed a motion to compel further written responses to a request for production of documents and to compel the production of documents. As Defendants have shown, responses were belatedly served containing only objections, and no documents were produced.

The motion was timely and properly served, and is unopposed. Plaintiffs have made no attempt to meet their burden to support any of their objections, which were waived in any event, and objections except for attorney client privilege are OVERRULED. The motion to compel further written responses has merit, and is GRANTED. As the responses were late, Defendants are correct that objections were waived, except for attorney client communications. Plaintiffs Randall Shuler and Stackspeed, Inc. shall serve full and complete code-compliant written responses to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within twenty days after Defendants have served notice of entry of a signed order on the motion
.
Motion to compel production of documents is DENIED, without prejudice. A motion to compel production in response to a document request is only available for a failure to permit inspection or production in compliance with a written response that indicates the items will be produced. (Code of Civ. Proc. sec. 2031.320.) As the response included only objections, the Court will not compel production of documents at this time.

Defendants’ request for non-monetary sanctions, such as evidentiary sanctions, is DENIED. Two facts are prerequisite to the imposition of non-monetary sanctions: (1) there must be a failure to comply with a court order; and (2) the failure must be willful. (See Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1102). Even where these facts are present, however, the trial court has broad discretion in imposing discovery sanctions. (See Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1293). In exercising this discretion, the court of appeal has indicated that the trial court should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery. (See Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992).
As there is no evidence of a failure to comply with a court order, any request for non-monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Portions of the monetary sanctions will be awarded. The Court does not award sanctions for time spent meeting and conferring or expenses not yet incurred. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a); Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.) Consequently, attorney’s fees for the time spent meeting and conferring and any anticipated attorney’s fees are not compensable. Moreover, the Court will not award sanctions for the prior motion that apparently was withdrawn. As no opposition was filed, no reply has been necessary. That leaves 4 hours at $225 per hour, for a total amount of $900, plus $60 for the filing fee, that the Court finds was reasonably and necessarily incurred.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Randall Shuler and Stackspeed, Inc., and their attorney Stanley Friedman are ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $960 within twenty days of Defendants’ notice of entry of the order signed by the Court.

Moving parties are to prepare the order.