Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV06363, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06363    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 32

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. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Ray Martin (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Luis Jesus Mancillas, Global Freight Solutions, Inc., and Does 1 to 50 for negligence surrounding a motor vehicle accident.

On April 13, 2023, Moving Defendant Global Freight Solutions, Inc. (Global), served written discovery on Plaintiff including Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Global did not grant an extension. Nevertheless, Plaintiff served late responses on June 6, 2023. After reviewing the responses, Global finds that some are deficient and now moves to compel further responses. Global also seeks sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

MEET AND CONFER

Global states that they sent a letter to meet and confer on the deficiencies. The letter outlined the specific issues and proposed a new deadline to submit responses. (Klimkowski Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. D.)  After Plaintiff did not respond to the letter, Global attempted to meet on the phone with Plaintiff’s counsel but was unsuccessful. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. E.) Therefore, they have shown that a reasonable and good faith attempt was made to resolve each issue.

ANALYSIS

Compel Further Requests for Production

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: 

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. 

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

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.  

“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).)   

Additionally, the motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 (b).) The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub further requires an informal discovery conference to be conducted prior to any motion to compel further responses. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the meet and confer efforts, the Court excuses Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s standing order.

Here, Global seeks to compel further Requests for Production, Set One, No. 8 and No. 19. The Court agrees that the responses are deficient, by failing to identify insurance information or otherwise providing a response compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230 (“A representation of inability to comply…shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody or control of the responding party. …”) The Court grants Global’s motion to compel further requests for production, set one, numbers 8 and 19.

Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that “on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: 

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. 

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. 

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” 

Here, Global seeks to compel further Form Interrogatory, Set One, No. 4.1, 10.1, and 17.1. The Court agrees that the responses are deficient, by not identifying insurance policies or otherwise providing a response compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c) (“If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”) The Court grants Global’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or a demand for production. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300 (d), 2031.310 (h).) Because Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, the Court has no information regarding whether there is substantial justification for the discovery abuse. However, the amount requested is excessive given the similarity of the motions and the nature of the motions. Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,000 (4 hours of attorney time at $250.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Global Freight Solutions Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff shall serve further responses within 30 days.

In addition, Plaintiff shall pay $1,000 in monetary sanctions to counsel for Defendant within 30 days.

Defendant shall give notice of the court’s order and file a proof of service of such.