IRVINE WESTPARK PLAZA LLC VS. BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION

The Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Requests for Production by Defendant Brinker Restaurant Corp. dba Chili’s Bar and Grill is GRANTED.

Defendant moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One (RFPs), Nos. 1-27.

Defendant’s counsel declares the subject discovery was served on 6/25/25 and Plaintiff served verified responses on 9/2/25. Defendant contends Plaintiff’s responses are not Code-compliant. It is not disputed that the subject discovery requests are reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)

The Code of Civil Procedure clearly sets out the manner in which a party must state whether or not they are complying with document production requests and if they are not complying, on what grounds they are unable to do so. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240.)

Each of Plaintiff’s responses states the following: “Responding Party agrees to produce the requested documents to the extent that they exist and are within its possession and/or control.”

Plaintiff’s written responses to discovery are not Code-compliant because it is unclear whether Plaintiff is complying in whole or in part, and on what grounds if any Plaintiff is unable or unwilling to comply. For example, if Plaintiff believes responsive documents exist which have been lost or are otherwise no longer within its possession, it must state as much.

Plaintiff must serve further responses clearly stating whether it will comply in whole or in part and the grounds for any inability to comply, using the language required under the Code of Civil Procedure provisions cited above.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $3,772.50 based on 5.5 hours of counsel’s time at $675/hour plus a $60 filing fee.