Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 21STCV29817, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

On August 12, 2021, Plaintiffs Henry Leslie and Tamarra Williams filed a complaint against Gerardo Rendon Venegas, Western Freight Carrier, Inc., and Does 1 to 50 for injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident.

On September 29, 2023, Defendant Western Freight Carrier, Inc. (“Defendant”) propounded Request for Production, Set Three on Plaintiff Tamarra Williams (“Plaintiff”). (Mathis Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. D.) Defendant granted an extension to respond until November 14, 2023. (Id. ¶ 8.) On November 15, 2023, Plaintiff served a response that contained only objections. (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. F.)

The parties agreed on a motion to compel further deadline of January 19, 2024. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Defendant now moves to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set Three number 19. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions.

On March 4, 2024, the parties appeared for a scheduled Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) pursuant to the Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order. The issues were not resolved. Therefore, the IDC requirement has been met. (Min. Order, 3/4/24.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:¿

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.¿

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).)¿¿¿

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to 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. § 2031.310 (h).)

Request for Production, Set One, number 19 requests a recording of Plaintiff’s independent medical examination that took place on March 2, 2023.

Plaintiff responded as follows: “Plaintiff objects to this discovery request as it seeks attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2018.020 and 2018.030 Further, the information sought in this discovery request is equally available to the propounding party from Dr. Stuart M. Gold who conducted the defense medical exam of Plaintiff on March 2, 2023.”

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts she provided the recording on February 2, 2024. (Kim Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant does not dispute this in reply. Therefore, the motion is denied as moot. However, Defendant still requests monetary sanctions since Plaintiff did not agree to extend the motion deadline.

Defendant requests $1,430 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, representing a $220 hourly rate. (Mathis Decl. ¶ 8.)

Defendant asserts that on January 5, 2024, it sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter requesting availability for an IDC and if the March 4, 2024 date was agreeable. (Mathis Decl. ¶ 11, Exh. H.) On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff extended the motion deadline to January 19, 2024. (Id. ¶ 12.) On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff indicated she would produce the at-issue discovery. (Id.) According to Defendant, Plaintiff refused to grant another motion extension. Due to this, Defendant filed this motion on January 19, 2024.

Sanctions are mandatory against the unsuccessful party in a motion to compel further discovery. Although the motion is denied as moot, Plaintiff did not timely produce the discovery,[1] necessitating this motion. Accordingly, sanctions are warranted. However, the amount is excessive. The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $440 (2 hours of attorney time).

Therefore, the motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production No. 19 is denied as moot.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, shall pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $440 to counsel for Defendant within 30 days.

[1] Plaintiff admits that the response was one day late, but argues that the court may relieve the party from waiver. (Opposition at p. 5.) However, such relief requires a motion, and the Court declines to grant such relief in an opposition. As objections were waived, and because Plaintiff did not file a motion for relief from waiver, the responsive recording should have been timely produced.

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	April 18, 2024
CASE NUMBER:	21STCV29817
MOTIONS:	Compel Plaintiff Tamarra William’s Further Response to Requests for Production No. 19
MOVING PARTY:	Defendant Western Freight Carrier, Inc.
OPPOSING PARTY:	Plaintiff Tamarra Williams