Jan Building Co. v. HDZ Drywall and Framer, Inc.

evidence. (McGonnell, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1106.)

Plaintiffs have provided no other evidence of a defect in the subject vehicle. Consequently, as Plaintiffs have not shown a triable issue of material fact regarding the presence of a defect, the presumptions stand, and Plaintiffs cannot establish that the subject vehicle was defective. Last, as the loss of consortium cause of action is derivative of the products liability causes of action, it is also defective. Therefore, the Court grants the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Southwest District Torrance Dept. E | JAN BUILDING CO., | Plaintiff, | Case No.: |

| vs. | | [Tentative] Granted | HDZ DRYWALL AND FRAMER, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive | Defendants. | | | | |

| | Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Moving Parties: Defendant HDZ Drywall and Framers Inc. Responding Party: Plaintiff Jan Building Co. HEARING: Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs The Court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

The Court grants the Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs.

BACKGROUND

On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff Jan Building Co. filed the Complaint against Defendant HDZ Drywall and Framer Inc., alleging causes of action for breach of contract and negligence.

On April 7, 2026, Defendant served the subject discovery.

On May 7, 2026, Plaintiff served responses.

On July 2, 2026, Defendant filed the Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs.

On July 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed the Opposition.

On August 6, 2026, Defendant filed the Reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

The propounding party may file motions to compel further responses to requests for production if it believes the responses received are (1) evasive, (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or overly general. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (a

The burden is on the moving party to "set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

This burden "is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance." (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

In response to a motion to compel further responses, the respondent bears the burden of justifying any objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests that the Court order further responses to all 58 of Defendant RFPs.

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel must be "accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.310 subd. (a).)

Section 2016.040 states that "a meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., 2016.040.)

Here, the parties met and conferred telephonically on June 5, 2026. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirements.

Merits

Here, the Court finds that the subject discovery requests are relevant to the Complaint and/or Cross-Complaint as they relate to the parties' practices regarding subcontractors and project administration.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co., supra, 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Therefore, the Court grants the Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs.

Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.

A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.010, subd. (d).)

Defendant requests that the Court impose sanctions on Plaintiff in the amount of $5,835.00.

While the Court finds for Defendant, it does not find that there has been any misuse of the discovery process by Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court declines to impose sanctions on Plaintiff. | Home -->)" -->