BRYAN KEITH JOHNSON, ET AL. VS DAVID CHASIN, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0361 Hearing Date: August 3, 2021 Dept: O

Case Name: Johnson, et al. v. Chasin, et al.

SUBJECT: MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT DEMANDS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Byran Keith Johnson and Linda Maisel Johnson

RESP. PARTY: Defendants David Chasin and Meredith Chasin

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses is GRANTED, Defendants are to serve verified, and without objections, further code compliant supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (RFP) nos. 26, 28, 29, and 86 through 92 within ____ days.

Defendants’ responses and supplemental responses do not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition to lacking verifications, they do not have the mandatory statements, affirmations and information required by CCP ;;2031.220 and 2031.230. [CCP ;2031.220: “. . . shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded will be allowed, either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party… will be included in the production.” (Italic added.); CCP ;2031.230: “. . . shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. The statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall also set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”]

Likewise, the objections, aside from lacking merit do not comply with CCP ;2031.240, subdivisions (b) and(c). [“(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (Emphasis added.) (c) If an objection to a document request is based on a claim of privilege or work product, then the response to the request shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”],

Plaintiff’s purported motion to compel “document production” is DENIED. The failure to produce the documents Defendants stated would be produced must be addressed through a motion to compel compliance with the response brought under CCP ;2031.320.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED, in part. The Court orders Defendants to pay Plaintiffs the sum of $8,156.05 [$8,060 for attorney’s fees (13 hours reasonably spent at $620 per hr) plus costs of $96.05] on or before the final status conference currently set for 10-21-2021.