Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Request for Special Sanctions
CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208108 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Request for Special Sanctions: Plaintiffs seek an Order requiring Defendant, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., to respond to Request for Production, Set One. Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions. Defendant does not oppose the motion to compel responses but does oppose monetary sanctions.
Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice. Plaintiffs’ request the Court take judicial notice of the Notice of Entry of Order filed on July 24, 2026, regarding Plaintiffs’ prior motion to compel further responses and a transcript from the hearing date of June 8, 2026, regarding the motion to compel further responses. The request is granted pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d).
Merits. A party has thirty days after service to respond to a Request for Production, Request for Admissions, Form Interrogatories, or Special Interrogatories. CCP §§ 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a), and 2030.260(a). Not providing a timely response to propounded discovery results in a waiver of objections. CCP §§ 2031.300(a). 2033.280(a), and 2030.290(a). If a party to whom a discovery request is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding discovery may move for an order compelling a response. CCP §§ 2031.300(b) and 2030.290(c). Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses when no responses have been provided does not require the propounding party to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390
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?”
Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Defendant was served by email on May 27, 2026, with Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, Set One. No responses were provided within the time required. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an email to Defendant requesting responses without objections no later than July 3, 2026. Defendant does not dispute that responses have not been provided. Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, Set One, are required.
Sanctions. Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.300(c) and 2023.030(a). Sanctions are mandatory absent substantial justification or other circumstances that would make imposition of the sanctions unjust. Defendant has failed to show substantial justification for the delay in providing responses to the discovery request.
Plaintiffs request attorney fees for bringing this motion in the amount of $875.00. The Court finds the hourly rate requested and time spent reasonable, with the exception of the time needed to attend the hearing on this motion. A substantially similar motion was filed regarding a separate defendant for the same hearing date and each motion requests an hour of time to attend the hearing. Two hours to attend the hearing is not reasonable. The Court will reduce this request by one halfhour. Sanctions will be imposed against Defendant in the amount of $700.00.
Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. is ordered to provide verified discovery responses within fifteen (15) days of Notice of Entry of Order. Objections are waived. Plaintiffs are awarded $700.00 in monetary sanctions, payable by 7
Defendant within 30 days of Notice of Entry of Order. A proposed order has been lodged and will be modified to reflect the Court’s ruling.
Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Request for Special Sanctions: Plaintiffs seek an Order requiring Defendant, Whitney Environmental Consulting, Inc., to respond to Request for Production, Set Two. Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions. Defendant does not oppose the motion to compel responses but does oppose monetary sanctions.
Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice. Plaintiffs’ request the Court take judicial notice of the Notice of Entry of Order filed on July 24, 2026, regarding Plaintiffs’ prior motion to compel further responses and a transcript from the hearing date of June 8, 2026, regarding the motion to compel further responses. The request is granted pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d).
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice. Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of the Declaration of William Sluss in support of Defendants Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. and Whitney Environmental Consulting, Inc.’s Opposition to Sanctions filed on June 8, 2026. The request is granted pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d).
Merits. A party has thirty days after service to respond to a Request for Production, Request for Admissions, Form Interrogatories, or Special Interrogatories. CCP §§ 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a), and 2030.260(a). Not providing a timely response to propounded discovery results in a waiver of objections. CCP §§ 2031.300(a). 2033.280(a), and 2030.290(a). If a party to whom a discovery request is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding discovery may move for an order compelling a response. CCP §§ 2031.300(b) and 2030.290(c). Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses when no responses have been provided does not require the propounding party to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390.
Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Defendant was served by email on May 27, 2026, with Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, Set Two. No responses were provided within the time required. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an email to Defendant requesting responses without objections no later than July 3, 2026. Defendant does not dispute that responses have not been provided. The Court notes that Defendant argues it is not a proper defendant and should be dismissed because the corporation dissolved in December of 2019 and the statutory time to sue the former shareholders has lapsed. This issue has not been properly brought before the Court, therefore responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, Set Two, are required.
Sanctions. Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.300(c) and 2023.030(a). Sanctions are mandatory absent substantial justification or other circumstances that would make imposition of the sanctions unjust. Defendant has failed to show substantial justification for the delay in providing responses to the discovery request.
Plaintiffs request attorney fees for bringing this motion in the amount of $875.00. The Court finds the hourly rate requested and time spent reasonable, with the exception of the time needed to attend the hearing on this motion. A substantially similar motion was filed regarding a separate defendant for the same hearing date and each motion requests an hour of time to attend the hearing. Two hours to attend the hearing is not reasonable. The Court will reduce this request by one half- 8
hour. Sanctions will be imposed against Defendant in the amount of $700.00.
Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Whitney Environmental Consulting, Inc. is ordered to provide verified discovery responses within fifteen (15) days of Notice of Entry of Order. Objections are waived. Plaintiffs are awarded $700.00 in monetary sanctions, payable by Defendant within 30 days of Notice of Entry of Order. A proposed order has been lodged and will be modified to reflect the Court’s ruling.
SHANNON VS. FCA US, LLC, ET AL.