Igor Sill v. William Deem et al

Igor Sill v. William Deem et al 24CV000698

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION (1) TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE TO WILLIAM DEEM; (2) TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO, TO KIMBERTON WINES, LLC AND (3) FOR SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED in part. The motion to compel responses is GRANTED. The request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendants shall serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, within 14 calendar days of service of notice of entry of order. Plaintiff is directed to provide notice of entry of order.

Plaintiff Igor Sill (“Plaintiff”) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivisions (b) and (c),3 for an order to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents and Tangible Things for Inspection and Copying, Set One, to William Deem and Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents and Tangible Things for Inspection and Copying, Set Two, to Kimberton Wines, LLC. Plaintiff further moves, pursuant to section 2031.300, subdivision (c), for an order of monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,790 against William Deem and Kimberton Wines, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”).

If a party to whom requests for production of documents were directed fails to serve a timely response, the responding party waives all objections and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (§ 2031.300, subds. (a)-(c).) All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a request for production was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Weil & Brown, Cal.

Practice Guide, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022), Ch. 8F, § 8:1140, p. 8F-59, citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.) The moving party is not required to show a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter informally with opposing counsel before filing the motion. (§ 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Plaintiff submits evidence demonstrating that the discovery was properly propounded and timely responses were not served. (Declaration of Brian L. DeWitt, filed 4/7/26 (“DeWitt Decl.”) at ¶¶ 2-5, Exhs. A-B.)

Defendants do not dispute the foregoing. (See Opposition, p. 4.) However, Defendants explain that (1) the discovery was served on Defendants’ former counsel the day before that counsel substituted out of the case, (2) the file provided to Defendants’ current counsel did not contain the written discovery that is the subject of the instant motion, (3) Plaintiff’s counsel never mentioned to Defendants’ current counsel that these discovery responses were outstanding prior to filing the instant motion, despite counsel engaging in a phone call regarding the case on March 31, 2026, (4) Plaintiff’s counsel refused Defendants’ current counsel’s attempt to meet and confer in lieu of proceeding with the motion, and (5) Defendants will provide written responses with no objections as soon as possible and, for Kimberton, no later than May 15, 2026. 3 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.

(See Opposition, pp. 1-5; Declaration of Michael G. Watters, filed 4/20/26 (“Watters Decl.”), ¶¶ 13-17.) Defendants further request that the Court deny the motion on the ground that the discovery is duplicative. (Opposition, pp. 4-5.) Finally, Defendants request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, arguing that Defendants’ current counsel has been responsive to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel could have avoided this motion by trying to resolve the dispute informally first. (Opposition, p. 5.)

While Defendants’ showing is not grounds to deny the motion to compel responses, it supports Defendants’ showing of substantial justification in opposition to sanctions, further discussed below.

As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, within 14 calendar days of service of notice of entry of order. (§ 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully . . . opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (§ 2031.300, subd. (c).)

The Court finds that Defendants acted with substantial justification based on Defendants’ showing that the subject discovery requests were served while Defendants were in the process of substituting counsel, that current counsel was not aware of the outstanding discovery requests until served with the instant motion, and that current counsel immediately attempted to meet and confer to informally resolve the dispute. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions as against Defendants is DENIED.

Kimberlee Hansen v. MM Asia Napa, LLC et al 26CV000043

[1] DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

[2] MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING: Both matters are CONTINUED to June 5, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B. In the interim, the parties are encouraged to continue meeting and conferring in a good faith effort to informally resolve or narrow the issues raised in the motion and demurrer.

9