Hill v. Nuser

Defendant claims that it served responses to the requests in a timely manner on October 31, 2025, more than four months before plaintiff filed his motion to compel, and therefore the motion is without merit and should be denied. However, the evidence shows that defendant served the responses on plaintiff’s former attorney, Jasminder Gill. (See Brumfiel decl., Exhibit A, Proof of Service to Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One.) Mr. Gill substituted out of the representation and Franz Reece substituted in on August 21, 2025, about two months before defendant served its responses. (See Substitution of Attorney filed on August 21, 2025.)

Plaintiff’s current counsel denies that he ever received the responses. (Kwak decl., ¶ 5.)

Thus, defendant’s service of the responses on plaintiff’s former attorney was ineffective to comply with its discovery obligations, and it is subject to an order compelling it to respond. Furthermore, since defendant failed to timely respond to the requests, it has waived the right to object to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Therefore, the court intends to order defendant to serve verified responses to the requests for production, set one, without objections. Finally, the court intends to order defendant to pay sanctions to plaintiff for its unjustified failure to timely respond to the requests. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Plaintiff seeks $1,860 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time billed at $450 per hour, plus $60 in filing fees. (Kwak decl., ¶ 8.) The requested amount is excessive in light of the relatively simple nature of the motion, however. Therefore, the court will award sanctions of $900 based on two hours of attorney time billed at $450 per hour, plus $60 in filing fees, for a total of $960. Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (b)(1), “A motion [to compel further responses to interrogatories] under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

Motions to compel further responses to requests for production of documents and requests for admissions must also include a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a).) “[A] determination of this kind (reasonability and good faith) almost inherently involves the court in considering issues of a factual nature.” (Obregon v.

Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 430.) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate also involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.” (Id. at p. 431.)

Here, plaintiff’s counsel sent meet and confer letters regarding the disputed responses to defense counsel on December 17, 2025, about six weeks after he received the responses. (Kwak decl., ¶¶ 8, 9, and Exhibit A thereto.) The parties then exchanged numerous emails and engaged in phone conversations about the discovery dispute over the next two months. (Exhibit A to Kwak decl.) They also agreed to extend the deadline to bring motions to compel until March 10, 2026. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Their last email exchange was on February 23 and 24, 2026. (Exhibit A, emails dated February 23 and 24, 2026.)

However, there is no evidence that the parties actually discussed the substance of their disputes at any time by phone, in person, or by videoconference. Plaintiff’s counsel claims that the parties discussed their disputes by email and phone, but he does not describe any phone conversation where they actually engaged in a substantive discussion of the issues raised in the motions to compel at any time. Most of the emails 4

exchanged by the parties simply discussed logistical matters, such as when they could have a phone discussion about the dispute. There is nothing in counsel’s declarations that shows that a phone conference actually took place that resulted in a good faith discussion of the issues. The last email was simply an inquiry from plaintiff’s counsel, asking when the parties could have a discussion of the issues. (Exhibit A to Kwak decl., email dated February 23, 2026.) Defense counsel responded “my associate was supposed to send a letter yesterday – you did not receive?” (Id., email dated February 24, 2026.)

There is no evidence of any discussions after the last email exchange. Plaintiff filed his request for a pretrial discovery conference on February 2, 2026, which was denied by the court on February 20, 2026. Plaintiff filed his motions to compel further responses on March 5, 2026. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel has not shown that he made a full good faith effort to meet and confer on the disputed requests before filing his motions. It appears that counsel prematurely filed the motions to compel without actually meeting and conferring in person, by phone, or by videoconference.

Simply exchanging emails and having discussions about scheduling a meet and confer discussion without actually engaging in a substantive discussion of the issues is not enough to show a good faith effort to meet and confer. Counsel must actually meet in person, by phone, or by videoconference and make a serious, good faith effort to resolve their disputes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) Therefore, the court will not hear the merits of the motions to compel further responses at this time, as the plaintiff has not shown that he engaged in a good faith effort to meet and confer on the issues raised by the responses.

Instead, the court intends to continue the matter and order the parties to engage in further efforts to meet and confer in person, by phone, or by videoconference. The court will also order plaintiff’s counsel to file a supplemental declaration before the hearing regarding the results of the discussions, and what responses, if any, remain at issue. At the continued hearing, the court will rule on the responses that remain in dispute, if any.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: lmg on 8-10-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

5