CHRISTENSEN VS FCA US, LLC.

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVME2513565 JAFARI VS CILING MOTION FOR SALE OF DWELLING Tentative Ruling: DENIED on multiple grounds. First, moving party failed to follow application/OSC procedure. Second, even if the Court were to treat the motion as an application, that application would fail because the parties have not provided the fair market value of the property and the motion is based upon an unsigned declaration of counsel.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVRI2406338 CHRISTENSEN VS FCA MOTION TO COMPEL US, LLC. COMPLIANCE Tentative Ruling: GRANTED.

In response to a demand for production of documents, documents must be sorted and labeled to correspond with the categories in the document demand. (CCP §2031.280(a); see Pollock v. Sup. Ct. (Schuster) (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1348, 1359.) Plaintiff asserts Defendant did not sort and label the produced documents. This does not constitute substantial compliance. Additionally, Plaintiff contends Defendant has not produced any ESI and has not provided an explanation for failure to produce any ESI.

The Court GRANTS the motion; Defendant shall sort and label the documents produced to correspond with the categories in the document demand. Defendant shall produce all ESI that is responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery demands. If there is no responsive ESI to a demand, Defendant must so state. Sanctions awarded against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500, to be paid within thirty days.