16-CIV-02987 MIKE ROSEN, ET AL. VS. XIAO YAN CHEN, ET AL.
MIKE ROSEN XIAO YAN CHEN
LAWRENCE D. MILLER BRADLEY KASS
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TENTATIVE RULING:
The motion to compel further responses to Demand for Production of Documents is granted as to categories 2 through 44. For each category or document to which Defendant asserted the objection of “attorney-client, work product, privacy or any other applicable privileges,” Defendant “shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Code Civ. Proc. 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) All other objections lack merit.
Other than documents identified as privileged or private, Defendant shall supplement her responses with “a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling,” or “a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.” (Code of Civ. Proc. section 2031.210, subd. (a)(1) & (2).) To the extent Defendant lacks ability to comply, the supplemental response shall fully comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.
The motion to compel further response to demand for inspection of property is granted. Defendant’s objections lack merit. Inspection of the property is relevant to the subject matter of this action; the request is not overbroad.
The motions to compel production of documents and to compel inspection of property are denied as premature. Such motion is appropriate when “a party filing a response to a demand for inspection . . . fails to permit the inspection . . . in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance . . . .” (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 2031.320.) Defendant has not served a statement of compliance yet.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $6,300.00, against Defendant Xiao Yan Chen and her attorneys Bradley Kass and the Kass & Kass Law Office, jointly and severally.
Defendant shall serve verified supplemental responses to Document Categories 2 through 44, and to the Demand for Inspection of Property, no later than October 19, 2018, or two weeks after service of written notice of this ruling.
Defendant Xiao Yan Chen, attorney Bradley Kass, and the Kass & Kass Law Offices shall pay, jointly and severally, a monetary sanction of $6,300.00 to Plaintiff Mike Rosen no later than October 12, 2018, or one week after service of written notice of this ruling.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.