Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 12/27/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses/Further Responses to Request for Production from Defendant in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Netlinks, Inc.s (Plaintiff) motion to compel defendant in pro per Mohammed Yusuf Esmati aka Mohd Esmatis (Esmati) to serve verified further responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Set One (RFPDs), numbers 1-11 is GRANTED.
Plaintiff served Esmati with the RFPDs on July 27, 2023. Esmati served responses on August 31, 2023. Despite meet-and-confer efforts, Esmati never served further responses. (Corrected Declaration of Timothy L. Joens (Joens Decl.) ¶¶ 2-11.)
In response to each of the RFPDs, Esmati responded as follows:
We hereby provide you the following list of documents which we will be using at trial in our defense. We also reserve the right to use any other document which is related to the case, and Plaintiff has access to such as any email/letter/message sent/received by Plaintiff, any document in Afghanistan legal/government archives and etc.
Esmati then identified various documents in response to each request, such as Afghanistan lawsuit documents, Ahmad Esmati Authorization Letter, Cisnet Global IT Solutions Articles of Association (Attached), Cisnet Global IT Solutions Trade License (Attached), Payment from Netlinks Ltd to Avientek, Payments from Netlinks Ltd Bank A/C to Cisnet Global IT Solutions bank A/C, and Partnership Investment Contract.
Plaintiff contends the responses are not code-compliant because Esmati has not stated whether he will comply with the subject request, lacks the ability to comply with any part of the request, and/or whether he has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in order to comply. Esmatis opposition simply maintains the responses are sufficient. The Court agrees the responses are not code-compliant.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 states:
(a) The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:
(1) 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 pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 12/27/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses/Further Responses to Request for Production from Defendant in Department 54
(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 states:
A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 states:
A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.
Esmatis responses do not comply with the foregoing. The responses do not state whether Esmati will comply with the requests, whether he lacks the ability to comply with any part of the requests, and/or whether he made a diligent search and a reasonably inquiry in order to comply.
Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to RFPDs, numbers 1-11 is GRANTED. Esmati shall serve verified further responses no later than January 10, 2024.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions against Esmati is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $660 (representing one hour of attorney time at the rate of $600 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee). Sanctions to be paid no later than January 10, 2024, and, if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.
Moving counsels notice of motion does not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Defendant and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Courts tentative ruling procedure and the manner to
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 12/27/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses/Further Responses to Request for Production from Defendant in Department 54
request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Defendant prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 12/27/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses/Further Responses to Request for Production from Defendant in Department 54
and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.