Motion to compel production of documents; Motion for sanctions
Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Tax the Item 11 costs is DENIED.
5. Item 1 - Filing and motion fees
The Costs Memo reports $4,107.16 in filing and motion fees. (Costs Memo, Worksheet, p. 1 and PDF pp. 7-10.) Filing and motion fees are expressly allowable under section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(1).
Plaintiff generally argues that not all filing fees are recoverable as they must be reasonably necessary to litigate the case. The mere restatement of the standard for costs is woefully inadequate to meet Plaintiff’s burden as it fails to identify any specific filing or motion practice, for which Plaintiff challenges the cost.
As such, the Motion to Tax the Item 1 costs is DENIED.
6. Item 10 - Attorney fees
The Costs Memo reports $1,000 in attorneys’ fees “[p]er the lease.” (Costs Memo, Worksheet, p. 3.) Plaintiff argues that attorneys’ fees cannot be recovered unless authorized by contract or statute. (Support Memo, p. 4, citing section 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).)
While Plaintiff identifies an accurate provision of law governing attorneys’ fees as costs, Plaintiff’s argument fails because it ignores the Costs Memo’s assertion that reimbursement is requested “[p]er the lease.” To meet Plaintiff’s burden, she would be expected to affirmatively argue or show how the lease does not make attorneys’ fees recoverable. Moreover, Defendants in Opposition make an evidentiary showing of the attorneys’ fee provision of the lease. (Opposition, p. 6 [citing ¶ 36 of the Residential Lease, admitted at trial as Exhibit 234]; Gordon Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Plaintiff implicitly concedes the foregoing by failing to file anything by way of a Reply.
As such, the Motion to Tax the Item 10 costs is DENIED.
Angela Stefenoni et al v. Pacific Boat Services, Inc. et al 25CV002287
[1] MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ANDREW STEFENONI TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROVIDE PRIVILEGE LOG, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Andrew Stefenoni is ordered to produce documents responsive to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and/or a privilege log as appropriate, within 10 Court days of Notice of Entry of the instant Order. Defendant’s request for an award of monetary sanctions is DENIED. Defendant is directed to provide Notice of Entry of the instant order.
Defendant Pacific Boat Services, Inc. moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Andrew Stefenoni to produce documents responsive to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Subject Discovery), provide a privilege log, and for monetary sanctions.
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?”
If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . . thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)
Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds as follows.
1. On December 4, 2025, Defendant propounded the Subject Discovery on Plaintiff Andrew Stefenoni. (See Declaration of Michael Fluetsch at ¶ 3, Exh. A.)
2. On January 8, 2026, Andrew Stefenoni served unverified responses to the Subject Discovery. (See id. at ¶¶ 4, Ex. B.) Thereafter, however, Plaintiff did provide verifications for the responses. (See id. at ¶ 9.)
3. As of the filing of the instant motion, Plaintiff has not produced any documents or any privilege log in response to the Subject Discovery. (See id. at ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff Andrew Stefenoni appears to concede the foregoing by failing to file anything in opposition to the instant motion.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s request for an order compelling compliance, by the production of documents and/or production of a privilege log, as appropriate, is GRANTED.
With exceptions having no apparent relevance here, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).) However, “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)
Defendant’s Notice of Motion fails to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040. The request for an award of monetary sanctions is, therefore, DENIED.
[2] MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ANGELA STEFENONI TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROVIDE PRIVILEGE LOG, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Angela Stefenoni is ordered to produce documents responsive to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and/or a privilege log as appropriate, within 10 Court days of Notice of
Entry of the instant order. Defendant’s request for an award of monetary sanctions is DENIED. Defendant is directed to provide Notice of Entry of the instant order.
Defendant Pacific Boat Services, Inc. moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Angela Stefenoni to produce documents responsive to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Subject Discovery), provide a privilege log, and for monetary sanctions.
If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . . thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)
Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds as follows.
1. On December 4, 2025, Defendant propounded the Subject Discovery on Plaintiff Angela Stefenoni. (See Declaration of Michael Fluetsch at ¶ 3, Exh. A.)
2. On January 8, 2026, Angela Stefenoni served unverified responses to the Subject Discovery. (See id. at ¶¶ 4, Ex. B.) Thereafter, however, Plaintiff did provide verifications for the responses. (See id. at ¶ 9.)
3. As of the filing of the instant motion, Angela Stefenoni has not produced any documents or any privilege log in response to the Subject Discovery. (See id. at ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff Angela Stefenoni appears to concede the foregoing by failing to file anything in opposition to the instant motion.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s request for an order compelling compliance, by the production of documents and/or production of a privilege log, as appropriate, is GRANTED.
With exceptions having no apparent relevance here, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).) However, “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)
Defendant’s Notice of Motion fails to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040. The request for an award of monetary sanctions is, therefore, DENIED.
23