Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents is DENIED. No sanctions.
Plaintiff Hardev Singh, DMD (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses to his Request for Production of Documents, Set One.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that this motion was filed as a motion to compel responses presumably under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(b) in title, but was treated substantively by Plaintiff as a motion to compel further responses under section 2031.310. Defendants Asha Gurz DMD Inc., Asha Gurz and Murat Gurz (collectively the “Defendants”) in responding to this motion has also treated the motion as a motion to compel further responses under section 2031.310. Thus, the Court will also treat this motion as such, but Plaintiff is admonished to properly title and file such motions in the future.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP 2031.310(b).)
Plaintiff contends that he has attempted to meet and confer in good faith with Defendants through their counsel, but Defendants’ counsel has ignored Plaintiff’s request. (Singh Decl., ¶¶ 4-7.)
Defendant Murat Gurz contends that he had already provided code compliant verified responses to the request at issue when he sent out his initial responses on September 20, 2019. (Apollo Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. D.) The Court has reviewed both the responses attached under Plaintiff’s declaration and Mr. Apollo’s declaration. The Court notes that Plaintiff does not dispute Mr. Apollo’s exhibit and finds Mr. Apollo’s exhibit is more accurate than Plaintiff’s exhibit.
The Court has reviewed the responses from Defendant Murat Gurz and find that they are in substantial compliance. Section 2031.210(a) only requires that the responding party respond with either (1) that the party will comply with the demand, (2) that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or (3) an objection to the demand. (CCP § 2031.210(a).) It is uncertain as to what basis Plaintiff seeks further responses when Defendant already provided responses with accompanying documents. Plaintiff failed to state what about these responses are incomplete to warrant further responses. Without such explanation, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion.
No sanctions. As an initial matter, how Plaintiff can request sanctions when he is representing himself does not demonstrate he is acting in good faith. (Kravitz v. Sup.Ct. (Milner) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1020 (holding that parties appearing in pro per may not recover attorney fees through discovery sanctions).) The Court finds that good faith efforts have not been demonstrated in the handling of this motion. Therefore, the Court will not sanction either party at this time. However, the parties are on notice that such tactics as are on display in this case and in this motion will not be tolerated by this Court.