Clubb, Mykayla vs. Orchard Square 79, LLC

Case No.: VCU320817 Date: May 21, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Plaintiff Mykala Clubb's Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Requests for Production of Documents as to (1) Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC; (2) Defendant Daniel Bailey; and (3) Defendant Marlene Bailey; Plaintiff Giovanni Nunez's Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Requests for Production of Documents as to (4) Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC; (5) Defendant Daniel Bailey; and (6) Defendant Marlene Bailey; and for Sanctions Tentative Ruling: (1) through (6): To grant the motions and order responses due no later than thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion; Plaintiffs shall give notice; to issues sanctions as follows: $470 against Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC and counsel of record, jointly and severally, consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling $470 against Defendant Daniel Bailey consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling $470 against Defendant Marlene Bailey consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling.

Please see advisement regarding oral argument below.

Facts Common to (1) through (6) In this habitability and negligence matter, Plaintiffs Clubb and Nunez sue Defendants Orchard Square 79, LLC, Daniel Bailey and Marlene Bailey. The Court notes Daniel and Marlene represent themselves at this point in the case. A motion to withdraw as counsel as to Orchard Square 79, LLC is set for May 28, 2026, 8:30 am, D1. Relevant here, Plaintiffs served Defendants with requests for production of documents on August 22, 2025. As of the date of the filing of these motions, no responses have been received.

Plaintiffs seek to compel initial responses and sanctions in the amount of $1,000 per motion. In opposition, Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC states that responsive documents were sent December 1, 2025, but notes that no client verification with respect to a response to requests for production has been provided. As such, the Court does not find the motion to compel responses moot. The responses remain unverified. Production of the documents themselves does not satisfy the discovery requirements.

Authority and Analysis (1) through (6) - Requests for Production The general rule is that unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Based on Defendants' failures to respond to the first sets of requests for production of documents, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(a) that Defendants provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Plaintiffs' first sets of requests for production of documents, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Plaintiffs shall give notice.

Sanctions Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(c) (Requests for Production), the Court will impose total sanctions as follows: $470 against Defendant Orchard Square 79, LLC and counsel of record, jointly and severally, consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling $470 against Defendant Daniel Bailey consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling $470 against Defendant Marlene Bailey consisting of one hour at the local rate of $350 plus $120 in filing fees, due no later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of this ruling. Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.

If a request for oral argument is received timely by the Court, the hearing for oral argument will be held on May 26, 2026; 8:30 am; D1. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings. Re: Pierce, Ronald vs. Singlepoint Outsourcing