AMR HUSSEIN VS MATTHEW VAN PETTEN PAULEY ET AL

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production (Set One)

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2018, Plaintiff Amr Hussein (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Matthew Van Petten Pauley, Joanne Doyle Pauley, Simona Vega, Mikal Aurora Vega, Amy Farris Perkins, and Tanner Steven Perkins.  Plaintiff alleges general and motor vehicle negligence arising from an automobile collision that occurred on March 10, 2016.

On July 13, 2020, Defendant Amy Farris Perkins filed a motion to compel responses to Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.

A trial setting conference is scheduled for November 16, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant Amy Farris Perkins asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Request for Production (All Set One).

Defendant Amy Farris Perkins also asks the Court to order Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay Defendant Amy Farris Perkins $435 in monetary sanctions for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

DISCUSSION

On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff counsel emailed Defendant Amy Farris Perkins’ counsel asking for all service of discovery to be emailed as a result of Plaintiff’s counsel’s office working remotely in response to COVID-19.  (Farid Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  The March 17, 2020 email identified Mahsa Farid’s, Gilda Pashai’s, Carolina A. Gonzalez’s, and a general mail box’s email addresses for discovery to be emailed to.  (Ibid.)  On March 23, 2020, Defendant Amy Farris Perkins served Request for Production (Set One) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail.  (Patel Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.)  On June 12, 2020, Defendant Amy Farris Perkins’ counsel sought to meet and confer with an attorney at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office, Daniel Geoulla, by email.  (Patel Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B.)  Daniel Geoulla is not the handling attorney.  (Farid Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. C.)

The Court finds the motion cannot be granted.  Defendant Amy Farris Perkins’ failure to comply with Plaintiff’s reasonable March 17, 2020 email request that discovery be served by e-mail belies the motion.  The Court will not deem Plaintiff’s objections waived.  The filing of this motion demonstrates a lack of professional curtesy. Thus, the motion must be denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Defendant Amy Farris Perkins is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant Amy Farris Perkins is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.