Filed 7/31/23

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

LUKE POLLOCK,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS 

ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

PETER SCHUSTER,

 Real party in Interest.

B321229

(Los Angeles County 

Super. Ct. No. 

20STCV18357)

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Barbara M. 

Scheper, Judge. Petition granted.

Morgan E. Ricketts for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Prindle, Goetz, Barnes & Reinholtz, Jack R. Reinholtz, 

Cynthia A. Palin, Doria G. Thomas for Real Party in Interest.

___________________________________
2

Plaintiff and petitioner Luke Pollock sued directors and 

staff of a structured sober living facility, including real party in 

interest Peter Schuster, for dependent adult abuse. The trial 

court found Pollock failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure 

section 2031.210 because his statement of compliance in response 

to Schuster’s document requests failed to identify which 

documents would relate to which specific requests.1

 The court 

imposed sanctions against Pollock and his attorney, Morgan E. 

Ricketts, in the amount of $910 for misusing the discovery 

process.

Pollock filed the instant petition for a writ of mandate 

directing the court to reverse the sanctions order. He argues that 

a statement of compliance in response to a production demand 

need not identify which document pertains to which request; such

identification need only occur when the documents are produced.

We agree. Based on the plain language of section 2031.210, 

a statement of compliance need not identify the specific request

to which each document will pertain. Because Pollock 

substantially complied with his discovery responsibilities in this 

regard, the court’s imposition of sanctions was an abuse of 

discretion.

Accordingly, we grant the petition.

BACKGROUND

A. Complaint

Pollock is a former resident of Millennium House, a 

structured sober living facility for men who are mentally ill or 

disabled or both, suffer from addictions, and are not competent to 

1 Undesignated statutory references will be to the Code of 

Civil Procedure.
3

find their own housing. Millennium House is a “lockdown” 

facility, meaning residents are not permitted to come and go or 

communicate freely. Many residents have been court-ordered to 

stay at the facility. 

Schuster is the sole director of Millennium House. 

Pollock and others sued Millennium House and several of 

its directors, staff, and service providers in a nine-count 

complaint alleging elder or dependent adult abuse, breach of the 

warranty of habitability, violation of Civil Code section 1942.4

(housing standards), violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act 

(Civ. Code, § 52.1), unfair business practices, common negligence, 

negligence under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15630, 

subdivision (a) (mandated reporting requirements), nuisance, and 

intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

Pollock alleged that Millennium House staff subjected 

residents to abusive conduct, including confiscating their food 

stamps and general relief payments, and the few Millennium 

House residents who were physically and mentally capable of 

performing work were forced into involuntary servitude by being 

required to assist at yard sales and work at a food pantry in 

exchange for donated food that feeds the rest of the residents,

and to prepare three meals a day for up to 50 residents.

B. Discovery

1. Distinction Between a Response and a 

Production

For clarity, we wish to maintain the distinction between a 

formal response to a production demand—i.e., a statement of 

compliance, representation of inability to comply, or assertion of 
4

any objections—and the production itself.

2

 Section 2031.210

prescribes the nature and format of the response. Section 

2031.250 requires that a response be verified unless it contains 

only objections. Section 2031.280 prescribes the form in which 

items must be produced. As newly amended, it requires that a 

document be identified with the specific request number to which 

it pertains, as opposed to the prior requirement that documents 

need only be produced as they were kept in the usual course of 

business. (§ 2031.280, subd. (a).)

There is no cross-requirement that a response correlate 

specific documents and requests or that a production be verified.

2. Pollock’s Anticipatory Productions

On February 15, 2021, in the absence of any discovery 

request, Ricketts, plaintiffs’ counsel, sent a Dropbox link by email 

to all defense counsel who had then appeared. The Dropbox 

contained 47 audio files and 133 pictures. Neither the email nor 

the contents of the Dropbox identified or formally responded to 

any discovery request (there had been none), and there was no 

verification or proof of service. 

2 The parties, trial court and Code of Civil Procedure use 

the word “response” to mean seven different things: A verified 

document in reply to a production demand, an answer within 

that document to a specific request (e.g., a compliance 

statement), the production of a requested document (as in “the 

response was Bates labeled”), the adverbial reason for the 

production (i.e., “in response” to a demand), an adjective 

(“responsive document”), a reply to a letter, and a retort to an 

argument. In this opinion “response” means either a document in 

answer to a production demand or a specific answer within that 

document.
5

On June 23 and July 6, 2021, Ricketts sent emails to all 

defense counsel with second and third Dropbox links to 

documents Bates labeled, for example, Plaintiffs 1-765, MB 1-

556, AC 1-61, LP 1-331, MS 1-101, and RS 1-123.3

 Neither the 

emails nor the contents of the Dropbox identified or formally 

responded to any discovery request, and there was no verification 

or proof of service. 

Ricketts would later email three more Dropbox links to the 

defendants.

3. Schuster’s Production Demand and Pollock’s 

Responses

a. Production Demand

On March 4, 2021, approximately two weeks after receiving 

plaintiffs’ first Dropbox link, Schuster served his first request for 

production of documents (RFP) on Pollock.

Pollock failed to respond either to the request or to 

Schuster’s meet and confer letter, and on June 18, 2021, Schuster 

filed a motion to compel a response, with a hearing set for July 

19, 2021.

This motion would not be heard until 2022, post. 

b. Responses

On July 6, 2021, Pollock served verified responses to 

Schuster’s requests for production. The responses identified the 

responding and demanding parties and set number, and 

responded separately and in sequence to each request.

3

 The Bates numbers corresponded with the initials of the 

plaintiffs on whose behalf the documents were produced: Michael 

Bankuthy, Abraham Cheng, Luke Pollock, Michael Salazar, and 

Ryan Stegan.
6

At issue are his responses to Requests 7-8, 13-14, and 16-

18.

Requests 7 and 8 sought photographs and video and audio 

recordings Pollock recorded while a resident of Millennium 

House. Request 14 sought court records, pleadings, 

correspondence, and other documents concerning the criminal 

action that led to Pollock’s residency at the sober living facility. 

Request 18 sought documents evidencing damages Pollock sought 

from Schuster.

To these requests, Pollock responded, “Responding Party 

has already produced all responsive documents.” 

Request 13 sought “court authored pleadings, 

correspondence, instructions or other documents” regarding 

Pollock’s residency at Millennium House. 

Pollock responded that such documents exist and were in 

the possession of the superior court and/or his public defender, 

and if he had any such documents, “they have all been produced.”

Requests 16 and 17 sought medical and mental health 

records concerning damages Pollock attributed to Schuster.

Pollock responded that he “has already produced all 

responsive documents in his possession, custody or control,” and 

additional documents were kept by treating physicians and 

facilities, which Pollock listed. 

Pollock identified none of the documents he had already 

produced and asserted no objections. 

Pollock never supplemented this response.

c. Meet and Confer Correspondence

On July 21, 2021, Schuster informed Ricketts that Pollock’s

responses to Requests 7-8, 13-14 and 16-18 were deficient to the 

extent they relied on the anticipatory productions because “none 
7

of the documents produced” complied with section 2031.280 by 

matching specific documents with specific requests. Schuster 

stated that “responses and documents produced need to be 

specifically identified as to which request number they respond.”

Ricketts offered to “identify which defendants and plaintiffs 

appear in each audio/video file, and which claims each file 

pertained to.” She said, “Let me know if that sounds like a 

reasonable alternative.” 

On September 22, 2021, the trial court held an informal 

discovery conference. Schuster represented in opposition to 

Pollock’s writ petition that the court explained to Ricketts that a 

blanket statement that all documents had been produced would 

not suffice where nothing linked any specific document to any 

specific defendant. Nothing in the record supports Schuster’s

representation, and Ricketts disputes it. 

4. Pollock’s Guide to Production

On January 15, 2022, Ricketts emailed a 46-page table that 

in two columns identified, by Bates number, which produced 

documents applied to which of Schuster’s requests. Ricketts 

asked Schuster’s counsel, “Please let me know if this will resolve 

our discovery dispute as to the RFPs; I hope that we can work 

together to resolve this to your satisfaction.”

The table listed the Bates number in the first column and 

the corresponding production request number in the second 

column.

For example, the table listed “P000004” in the first column 

and “Schuster 8 (LP)” and “Schuster 13 (all plaintiffs, but 

primarily Abraham Cheng)” in the second, meaning plaintiffs’ 

document No. 4 corresponded with Schuster’s Request No. 8 
8

propounded on Luke Pollock and Request No. 13 propounded on 

all plaintiffs, with particular relevance to Cheng.

The table also broke down Pollock’s individual document 

productions. For example: “LP000001-LP000028” in the first 

column and “Schuster 15, 16 (LP)” in the second meant that Luke 

Pollock’s documents 1 to 28 corresponded with Schuster’s 

Requests 15 and 16 propounded on Pollock.

On March 28, 2022, Schuster informed Ricketts that 

section 2031.280 requires that a response to a production request 

“must identify the documents responsive to the request and the 

response must be verified. . . . The 46 page reference guide . . . 

does not relieve Plaintiffs of the obligation to provide code 

compliant responses to Schuster’s Request for Production.” 

C. Motion to Compel

As noted above, on June 18, 2021, half a year before 

receiving Ricketts’s reference guide, Schuster filed a motion to 

compel further responses to his Requests 7-8, 13-14, and 16-18, 

and sought sanctions. The motion was heard nearly a year later, 

on April 27, 2022.

In opposition to the motion, Ricketts argued that her 46-

page guide to the Dropbox productions “provided labels to 

categorize every single document and file produced according to 

which plaintiff was identifying each document as responsive to 

which of Schuster’s RFPs . . . . [¶] Schuster has never been clear 

in what he wants Plaintiffs to do now.” Ricketts argued that a 

document production need not be verified and a response to a 

production demand need not match documents with requests. 

Only the production itself must match documents with requests, 

which Pollock did.
9

Ricketts argued Pollock’s production was “thoughtful and 

organized, arranged by filetype (audio from P1 - P49; 

photographs of the property from P50 - P149; videos from P150 -

P159; photographs of multi-page contemporaneous letters, 

carefully organized in both date and page order from P160 -

P224). Later, Department of Public Health records and HCID-LA 

records related to property inspections were produced from P301 -

P588 and P589 - P715, respectively.” 

Ricketts asserted that she spent “over a dozen hours” 

preparing the table to address Schuster’s request that the 

production be corresponded to each of his document requests. 

She further noted that her initial production “was organized to 

correspond with categories, just not those contained in Schuster’s 

demand, because his was not the demand in response to which 

the documents were produced.”

In reply, Shuster argued that Ricketts’s reference guide

failed to cure the deficiency of Pollock’s “responses.” He argued 

that a “response must identify the documents responsive to the 

request and the response must be verified,” but “[n]o documents 

were identified in Plaintiff’s response.”

D. Ruling

At the hearing, Ricketts argued that a response to a 

document demand need not state which documents correspond 

with which requests. The court disagreed, finding Pollock failed 

adequately to respond to Shuster’s requests for production 

because “there’s no verified response” indicating which 

documents correlated with which requests. 

On April 27, 2022, the court ordered Pollock “to provide 

written, verified, and complete responses to Defendant’s Request 

for Production of Documents, Set One, Numbers 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 
10

17 and 18 without objections.” The court further imposed 

sanctions on Pollock and Ricketts in the amount of $910.00. 

E. Petition

Pollock petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the court 

to reverse the sanctions order. Schuster opposed the petition but 

apparently abandoned (by silence) his position that a response to 

a document request must identify the documents applicable to 

each request. 

On December 12, 2022, we issued an alternative writ 

directing the trial court to vacate that part of its order imposing 

monetary sanctions on Pollock and Ricketts and issue a new 

order denying Schuster’s request for sanctions.4

 The superior 

court declined to change its April 27, 2022 ruling.

On January 11, 2023, we issued an order to show cause 

why a peremptory writ should not be issued ordering the trial 

court to vacate that part of the April 27, 2022 order imposing 

monetary sanctions on Pollock and Ricketts and issue a new

order denying Schuster’s request for sanctions. We invited a 

written return in opposition to the writ, but neither Schuster nor 

Respondent accepted the invitation.

DISCUSSION

Pollock contends the superior court abused its discretion by 

awarding monetary sanctions upon granting Schuster’s motion to 

compel the production of documents, because section 2031.210 

does not require that responses to a request for production 

4 Petitioners further petitioned for a writ directing the trial 

court to reverse an order imposing sanctions on Salazar. We 

issued no alternative writ as to that part of the petition, and 

hereby summarily deny the petition insofar as it pertains to 

Salazar.
11

include a description of which documents apply to which 

requests. We agree.

A. Legal Principles

1. Writ Review of a Sanctions Order

Sanction orders of five thousand dollars or less against a 

party or an attorney may be reviewed upon petition for an 

extraordinary writ. (§ 904.1, subd. (b).) 

2. Discovery Requirements

A party to litigation may obtain discovery by inspecting and 

copying documents and tangible things in the possession, 

custody, or control of any other party to the action. (§ 2031.010, 

subd. (a).)

A party to whom a document demand has been directed 

“shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any 

of the following: [¶] (1) A statement that the party will comply 

with the particular demand . . . . [¶] (2) A representation that 

the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand . . . . [¶] 

[or] (3) An objection to the particular demand . . . .” (§ 2031.210, 

subd. (a).)

The first paragraph of the response must identify the 

responding party, the set number, and the identity of the 

demanding party. (§ 2031.210, subd. (b).)

“Each statement of compliance, each representation, and 

each objection in the response shall bear the same number and be 

in the same sequence as the corresponding item or category in 

the demand . . . .” (§ 2031.210, subd. (c).)

The responding party’s response to a production demand 

must be verified unless it contains only objections. (§ 2031.250.)

Section 2031.280 prescribes the form in which items must 

be produced. As recently amended, it requires that a document 
12

“be identified with the specific request number to which the 

documents respond.” (Id. at subd. (a).) This replaces the prior 

requirement that documents “either be produced as they are kept 

in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to 

correspond with the categories in the demand.” (Former § 

2031.280, subd. (a).)

There is no requirement that a response identify a 

document with the specific request to which the document 

applies.

There is no requirement that a document production be 

verified, nor that documents be Bates labeled.

3. Sanctions Requirements

A party or attorney may be sanctioned for misusing the 

discovery process. (§ 2023.030.)

Misuse of the discovery process includes, as pertinent here, 

“[u]sing a discovery method in a manner that does not comply 

with its specified procedures” (§ 2023.010, subd. (b)) and 

unsuccessfully opposing a motion to compel without substantial 

justification (id. at subd. (h)).

To avoid sanctions, an unsuccessful opponent to a motion to 

compel may show “substantial justification” for his or her 

position—i.e., a rational basis to conclude that the party’s failure 

to fulfill its discovery obligations was justified. (Foothill 

Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 

1542, 1557 (Foothill Properties).) Substantial justification is 

justification that is “clearly reasonable because it is wellgrounded in both law and fact.” (Doe v. United States Swimming, 

Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.)

We review the propriety of a discovery sanctions award for 

an abuse of discretion. (Foothill Properties, supra, 46 
13

Cal.App.4th at p. 1557.) We will overturn a sanctions award if it

is at odds with “ ‘ “legal principles and policies appropriate to the 

particular matter at issue.” ’ ” (Young v. Rosenthal (1989) 212 

Cal.App.3d 96, 115.)

B. Application

Pollock did not misuse the discovery process. His verified 

July 6, 2021 response to Schuster’s document requests identified 

the demanding and responding parties and set number and 

responded separately and in sequence to each request by making 

a statement of compliance or representing an inability to comply.

Although Pollock’s anticipatory Dropbox links failed to 

comply with the requirement of section 2031.280 that documents

be identified with the specific request to which they apply, that 

was understandable in the beginning because there were no such 

requests. Once the production was complete (after six emails 

containing Dropbox links), Ricketts reasonably cured any defect 

by providing a 46-page table that listed by Bates number which 

documents applied to which requests.

Pollock’s initial compliance with his obligations in 

responding to Schuster’s document requests, and Ricketts’s later 

remediation of the production’s defects, gave Pollock substantial 

justification to oppose Schuster’s motion to compel.

Therefore, the imposition of sanctions, which was grounded 

on the trial court’s apparent misunderstanding as to how specific 

a response to a document demand needs to be, constituted an 

abuse of discretion.
14

DISPOSITION

The petition for writ of mandate is granted. Respondent is 

directed to vacate its sanctions order as to the Pollock discovery 

and enter a new order denying real party’s request for sanctions.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.