Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV17717, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17717    Hearing Date: June 4, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Sets One, and Request for Sanctions in the Amount $1,347.50. Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Augustina Nwosu’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure §2031.300(B) and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,347.50.

BACKGROUND

AUGUSTINA NWOSU (“Plaintiff”) brings this case against THE COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY and SMART & FINAL for alleged injuries Plaintiff sustained from her deodorant.  

Defendant THE COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY (“Defendant”) filed two motions to compel Plaintiff to provide initial, verified responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories and document requests, and imposing $1,347.50 in sanctions as to each motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to compel initial discovery responses need only show that discovery was properly served on the opposing party, the time to respond expired, and no response was served. Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 06; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 (compelling initial interrogatory responses),  2031.300 (compelling initial document requests). A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice. E.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-1558. “‘[S]ubstantial justification’ has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434. “If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’” Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1435.

ANALYSIS

Defendant filed the motions based on Plaintiff’s failure to provide any response to properly served discovery requests. Defendant has adequately shown that it served Plaintiff with the discovery on 3/12/24 but Plaintiff did not timely serve responses or respond to the meet and confer requests by Defendant’s counsel. Defendant therefore had no choice but to file this motion. Plaintiff filed a declaration from her attorney explaining that he had “personal challenges” that prevented him from promptly responding to the discovery but that Plaintiff has now served verified written responses to the three sets of discovery. Onyejekwe Decl., ¶ 2, Exs. A, B.

Where respondents served untimely discovery responses after parties have filed motions to compel initial 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.

Given that Plaintiff has now served verified written responses to the outstanding discovery, the Court exercises its discretion to take the motions off calendar as moot. The Court also exercises its discretion to find that there was substantial justification for Plaintiff’s tardy responses based on counsel’s explanation that personal issues prevented him from serving the responses earlier. Thus, the Court will not impose monetary sanctions.

The other defendant in this case also has motions to compel responses on calendar for 7/1/2024. The Court will ask Plaintiff at the hearing about the status of those responses.

CONCLUSION

The Court orders the motions off calendar, as moot.