Court Opinion

ID: 9412554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 19:04:43.865706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:37.910722
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/31/23
                CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                           DIVISION ONE

 LUKE POLLOCK,                              B321229
                                            (Los Angeles County
         Petitioner,
                                            Super. Ct. No.
                                            20STCV18357)
         v.

 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS
 ANGELES COUNTY,

         Respondent;

 PETER SCHUSTER,

         Real party in Interest.

     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.
             ___________________________________
       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
                                                    1
documents would relate to which specific requests. 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.

                                 2
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

                                3
                                           2
any objections—and the production itself. 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.

                                 4
      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-
                                                   3
556, AC 1-61, LP 1-331, MS 1-101, and RS 1-123. 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.

                                  5
      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

                                 6
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

                                 7
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.

                                8
       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,

                                9
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
                                                 4
order denying Schuster’s request for sanctions. 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.

                                 10
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

                                11
“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 well-
grounded 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

                                12
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.

                                 13
                          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.

                                14