Case Name: ??? Herspring, Inc., et al. v. Stapleton-Spence Packing Company, Inc., et al.
Case No.:??????? 2014-1-CV-273777
Currently before the Court is plaintiff J.G. Neil & Company?s (?JG?)?s motion to compel defendant Stapleton-Spence Packing Company, Inc. (?SSPC?) to provide further responses to requests for production of documents (?RPD?) and for monetary sanctions.
- Factual Background
This is a collections action. On January 19, 2015, JG and plaintiffs Herspring, Inc., Herspring-Gibbs, LLC, Slaybaugh Associates, Inc., the Sturdivant Co. and John Sturdivant (collectively, ?Plaintiffs?) filed the operative third amended complaint (?TAC?) against SSPC and defendants Rio Pluma, Inc., Rio Pluma Company, LLC, and Martin Bradley Stapleton (collectively, ?Defendants?). As relevant here, Plaintiffs allege the following in the TAC: JG has promoted, distributed and sold Defendants? food products on a commission basis for many years. (TAC, ? 15.) Over this time, Defendants have failed to pay over $149,000 in outstanding, earned commissions. (TAC, ? 16.)
- Discovery Dispute
In January 2016, JG served SSPC with its third set of RPD seeking records concerning unpaid commissions. SSPC subsequently served initial responses, consisting of both objections and substantive responses. On April 8, 2016, JG?s counsel sent SSPC?s counsel a meet and confer letter, indicating that SSPC?s objections lacked merit and its responses were incomplete. On April 11, 2016, SSPC?s counsel sent an e-mail in response, indicating that he would provide a response to the letter shortly. After waiting 10 days without any response from opposing counsel, JG?s counsel sent a follow-up e-mail indicating that since opposing counsel had yet to respond as promised JG would file a motion to compel further responses to the RPD.
On April 21, 2016, SSPC?s counsel sent an e-mail in response, asking for additional time to consult with his client and representing that SSPC would supplement some of the responses to the RPD. The following day, counsel met and conferred over the telephone concerning the responses to the RPD.
On April 26, 2016, JG?s counsel sent a letter to opposing counsel indicating that they had sufficiently met and conferred concerning the requests at issue, SSPC still refused to withdraw its objections, and the parties had reached an impasse. The following day SSPC?s counsel sent a letter in response indicating that no motion was necessary because SSPC intended to serve supplemental responses.
On May 2, 2016, JG filed the instant motion to compel further responses to the RPD. On May 17, 2016, SSPC filed its opposition, in which it requests monetary sanctions. JG filed its reply on May 23, 2016.
III. Evidentiary Objections
In connection with its reply, JG interposes several objections to the evidence submitted in support of SSPC?s opposition. There is no authority, however, holding that the Court must rule on an evidentiary objection made in connection with a discovery motion. Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on the objections.
- Motion to Compel Further Responses to the RPD
JG moves to compel SSPC to provide further responses to the RPD on the ground that SSPC?s objections lack merit and its substantive responses are not code-compliant. (See Code Civ. Proc., ? 2031.310, subds. (a)(1)-(3) [stating that a party propounding a request for production of documents may move for an order compelling a further response if it deems that a statement of compliance with a request is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is incomplete, or an objection to the response is without merit or too general].)
Preliminarily, SSPC argues that the motion should be denied because it served supplemental responses subsequent to the filing of the motion. Where a discovery response is served after a motion to compel is filed, the court has substantial discretion in deciding how to rule in light of the particular circumstances presented. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.) In its discretion, the court might deny the motion to compel as moot or examine the responses to determine if they are code-compliant. (Id. at p. 409.) The Court declines to evaluate the sufficiency of the amended responses at this juncture. To the extent JG deems these supplemental responses to be deficient, it may meet and confer with SSPC, and, if necessary, bring a motion to compel further responses. Accordingly, JG?s motion to compel further responses to the RPD is DENIED as moot.
- Requests for Monetary Sanctions
Both parties request monetary sanctions in connection with this motion.
- JG?s Request
JG requests $1,290 in monetary sanctions against SSPC under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), which provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, 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. Under this section and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), a court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (See Judicial Council of Cal., Advisory Com. Rep., Discovery Rules (2000) p. 2 [stating that the party providing discovery in response to pending motion is in effect the unsuccessful party].)
Here, SSPC?s service of supplemental responses after the filing of the motion renders its opposition unsuccessful. However, the Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions against SSPC would be unjust based on JG?s filing of the instant motion despite opposing counsel?s repeated representations that SSPC would provide supplemental responses if only given sufficient time to do so. Accordingly, JG?s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
- SSPC?s Request
SSPC requests $3,100 in monetary sanctions against SSPC pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h). As previously discussed in connection with JG?s request for sanctions, SSPC?s service of supplemental responses after the filing of the instant motions renders JG the prevailing party. As such, SSPC is not entitled to monetary sanctions under this statute. Accordingly, SSPC?s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.