MICHAEL GREENSTONE VS FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP03476    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 26

Case Number: 20STLC00405    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 26

Hair v. Able Auto Adjustors, Inc., et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Cassandra Hair’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Further Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is DEEMED MOOT AS TO THE FURTHER RESPONSES AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $3,102.50 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff Cassandra Hair (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Able Auto Adjustors, Inc. (“Defendant”) for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and negligence.

On September 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Further Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions. Defendant filed an opposition on February 10, 2021 and Plaintiff replied on February 18, 2021.

Discussion

Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, the parties mutually agreed to extend the time to respond to September 4, 2020. (Motion, Dahl Decl., Exh. 21.)

Also, the motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) Plaintiff filed a declaration demonstrating that the parties engaged in a significant meet and confer effort prior to the filing of this Motion. (Motion, Rocco Decl., 5-18 and Exhs. 7-19.) No supplemental responses were served prior to the filing of the Motion. (Id. at ¶19.) The meet and confer requirement, therefore, is satisfied.

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Alternatively, “the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).) The Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (Separate Statement, filed 3/15/19.)

The parties agree that the substance of the Motion is moot, Defendant having served supplemental responses on February 4, 2021 and the only issue that remains is sanctions. The Court finds that Defendant’s conduct resulted in the need for Plaintiff to bring the instant Motion. Plaintiff extended the deadline for code-compliant responses three times: to July 22, 2020, August 21, 2020 and August 28, 2020. (Motion, Dahl Decl., ¶¶6, 12, 16; Rocco Decl., Exh. 17.) Defendant’s opposition fails to explain why the August 21, 2020 deadline passed without service of supplemental responses. Defendant also failed to produce responses by the next deadline on August 28, 2020. The opposition argument that Defendant had concerns about the production of a single document was not raised until the August 28, 2020 deadline to respond. (Opp., Welde Decl., ¶3i.) This is simply too dilatory for the Court to find in good faith and demonstrates that Defendant was not committed to meeting the August 28, 2020 deadline, even after multiple prior extensions.

Plaintiff’s attorneys spent a combined 9.7 hours with respect to this Motion, . Attorney Dahl spent 7.7 hours billed at $325.00 per hour and Attorney Rocco spent 2.0 hours billed at $300.00 per hour. (Motion, Dahl Decl., ¶21; Rocco Decl., ¶21.) Plaintiff additionally incurred Motion costs of $100.00. (Motion, Dahl Decl., ¶21.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $3,102.50 in attorney fees and $100.00 in costs. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.310.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Cassandra Hair’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Further Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is DEEMED MOOT AS TO THE FURTHER RESPONSES AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $3,102.50 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.