Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 22STCV15837, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV15837, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15837 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff On Point Builders, Inc.’s Motion To Compel Defendant Las Palmas Silver, LLC’s Further Responses To Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff On Point Builders, Inc.’s Motion To Compel Defendant Las Palmas Silver, LLC’s Further Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff On Point Builders, Inc.’s Motion To Compel Defendant Las Palmas Silver, LLC’s Further Responses To Request For Production Of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff On Point Builders, Inc.’s Motion To Deem Requests For Admissions As Admitted Or, Alternatively, To Compel Defendant Las Palmas Silver, LLC’s Further Responses To Request For Admission, Set One.

Background

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant ON POINT BUILDERS, INC. (“On Point”) bring this case against Defendant and Cross-Complainant LAS PALMAS SILVER, LLC (“Las Palmas”) and Defendant DAVID PARTIEL for claims arising out of Defendants’ alleged failure to pay for Plaintiff’s work on a construction project.

Now under consideration are On Point’s four discovery motions requesting from Las Palmas further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and document requests, and for an order deeming admitted requests for admission. On Point also seeks monetary sanctions for the four motions. In its opposition briefs, Las Palmas contends that the motions are moot because Las Palmas served further responses to the discovery requests on 3/26/24 and that the requested sanctions are unwarranted.

Analysis

After filing the motions to compel, the parties held an IDC with the Court. At the IDC held on 2/6/24, counsel for Las Palmas agreed to serve further responses to the four sets of discovery by 3/1/24. See Pham Decl., ISO Motions to Compel, ¶ 3, Ex. B. Las Palmas did not serve further responses by 3/1/24. Las Palmas served further responses nearly four weeks later, the day before the deadline for filing opposition to the motions. Id., ¶ 4, Exs. C-F. The further responses were not verified until 3/28/24, which is tantamount to no responses. Appleton v. Superior Court (1998) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636. This means that at the time Las Palmas filed its opposition briefs, it had not served verified, further responses.

On Point acknowledges in its reply briefs that Las Palmas has now served verified, further responses. On Point has not had an opportunity to review the further responses to determine if they are sufficient. On Point contends that the Court should still order further responses without objections and impose a reduced amount of sanctions against Las Palmas.

Where respondents serve untimely discovery responses after parties have filed motions to compel responses, courts have broad discretion as to ruling, including: 1) denying the motion as moot, in whole or part, where valid responses without objections have resolved the motion; 2) awarding requested sanctions; 3) allowing moving party to take the motion off calendar; 4) considering the motion as voluntarily narrowed in scope; 5) compelling responses without objection, where no legally valid responses have been provided, as to some, or all, interrogatories; 6) treating the motion as one to compel further responses, and ruling accordingly, with, or without, a separate statement; 7) ordering the parties to meet and confer; 8) ordering moving party to file a separate statement; or, 9) ordering the motion off calendar while requiring the propounding party to file a motion to compel further responses. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., v. Klugman (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.

Here, the Court exercises its discretion to order the motions off-calendar without prejudice for On Point to file any proper motions to compel further responses after first participating in another IDC to resolve any issues regarding the further responses served by Las Palmas.

The Court also exercises its discretion to impose sanctions against Las Palmas, pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). The purpose of the IDC process is to avoid costly and unnecessary discovery motion practice. Counsel for Las Palmas acknowledged at the 2/6/24 IDC that Las Palmas’s initial objection-only responses were deficient and needed to be supplemented. He agreed to serve further responses by 3/1/24, which was already five months after Las Palmas had served its initial, deficient responses. The Court expected that Las Palmas would live up to its agreement, thus avoiding further motion practice on On Point’s discovery requests. But Las Palmas missed that deadline by nearly a month and only served responses on the eve of its opposition deadline. Las Palmas has no explanation for once again delaying in complying with its discovery obligations. This delay meant that On Point did not have time to review the responses and determine their sufficiency before the deadline for filing reply briefs.

The bottom line is that Las Palmas’s inexcusable delay in complying with its discovery obligations has only served to increase the costs of this litigation. The Court determines that a reasonable amount of sanctions for this misuse of the discovery process is $6,037.50, reflecting 17.5 hours of attorney time to prepare the motions, participate in the IDC, and prepare the reply briefs. The sanctions are to be paid by Las Palmas and/or its attorney within 30 days of this order.