Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
(Torrance Courthouse: Dept. M) August 17, 2026 DEPARTMENT M LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Dept. M issues tentative rulings in many, but not all motion hearings. There is no set time at which tentatives are posted. Please do not call the staff to inquire if a tentative will be posted.
If parties are satisfied with the ruling, parties may submit on the tentative. However, if an opposing party does not submit, they will be permitted to argue. Please check with the other side before calling the courtroom to submit. The staff does not keep track of which parties submitted and which did not, so please do not ask. If a matter is also a scheduling hearing (CMC, TSC, OSC etc) an appearance is still required even if a party submits on the tentative ruling.
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Department M Monday - August 17, 2026 Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Nefertiti Abdou v. Arto John Boyajian, D.M.D., et al.
Nefertiti Abdou's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions
Nefertiti Abdou's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is denied.
Background
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on February 16, 2023. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff contends that Defendants committed dental malpractice.
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents A party responding to an inspection demand shall respond to each demand with one of the following: a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.210, subd. (a).) A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (a).)
If a demanding party believes the responding party responded inadequately, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (a).) "Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (c).)
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?”
Meet and Confer Plaintiff did not set forth a meet and confer declaration in substantial compliance with CCP Sec. 2031.310(b)(2). Plaintiff states that Defendant filed a supplemental response to the request for production of documents on March 20, 2026. However, there is no showing that Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant regarding the supplemental responses prior to filing this motion. (Declaration, Nefertiti Abdou, P.P. 10-13). For this reason alone, the motion can be denied.
Motion to Compel Plaintiff seeks further responses to Request for Production of Documents ("RFP" or "Request[s]") Nos. 1 to 58. The Requests essentially seek documents related to the Plaintiff's recent independent medical examination including documents related to the motion to compel the examination that was filed by Defendant, documents reflecting communications between Defendant's counsel and Defendant's insurers, and documents reflecting communications between Defendant's counsel and Plaintiff's former counsel regarding the IME and other matters.
First, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed three different versions of this motion. The Court only considered the version filed on July 21, 2026 as presumably this is the most up to date version of the motion. The Court admonishes Plaintiff and informs Plaintiff that one motion reservation and one scheduled motion date means that only one motion may be filed. Defendant states that it was forced to then prepare and file separate oppositions incurring additional fees and costs.
The Court has reviewed Defendant's responses to Requests 1 to 58 and the responses are in sufficient compliance with CCP Sec.Sec. 2031.210 to 2031.240. As to all the requests except for Requests 16 to 19, 52, and 57, Defendant asserted objections and set forth a substantially code-compliant response stating that all documents were previously produced on February 13, 2026 or that after a diligent search indicated that no documents exist in compliance with the request. It appears that the bulk of Plaintiff's arguments relate to her contention that the documents that were produced are not complete.
Essentially, Plaintiff contends that the documents that were produced are not in accordance with a statement of compliance but instead that Defendant has withheld documents. Here, Defendant stated that all responsive documents were produced on February 13, 2026. If the production of documents does not comport with that statement, the proper recourse would be to file a motion for compliance under CCP Sec. 2031.320.
As to Requests 16 to 19, Defendant justified its objections as the materials related to attorney/client privileged or attorney work product matters. In addition, the requests seek information as to a completely separate malpractice action against a non-party to this action which implicates third party privacy interests. In addition, these matters, related to completely separate litigations, are not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the instant action.
As to Request 52, the request seeks "All communications or materials shared with or by Defendants' insurer relating to the IME." As to Request 57, the request seeks "[a]ll transmittal letters, emails, cover communications, indices, logs, or other written memorializations identifying, describing, summarizing, or referencing materials transmitted by Plaintiffs former counsel to Defendants or their insurer." Defendant justified its objections based on the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product doctrine and provided a privilege log. The responses sufficiently comply with Sections 2031.210 et seq. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is denied.
Sanctions Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is denied. Defendant's request for monetary sanctions is granted. Plaintiff is sanctioned the amount of $1,500.00 which was derived from 6 hours to prepare and appear at $250/hour. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of this date. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Case Number: 24TRCV02490 Hearing Date: August 17, 2026 Dept: M LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Monday, August 17, 2026 Department M Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS M.E.M. Worldwide, Inc. v. General Motors, LLC, et al. 24TRCV02490 1. M.E.M. Worldwide, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees TENTATIVE RULING M.E.M. Worldwide, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part.
Background
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 29, 2024. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff purchased a 2022 Cadillac Escalade which was manufactured and distributed by Defendant. The vehicle suffers from defects. Defendant has not been able to repair the vehicle. Defendant has refused to repurchase the vehicle. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly Act") and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.