Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV08300, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08300    Hearing Date: May 22, 2024    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

            Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Bruce Follings (“Plaintiff”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300, if a party fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Pro § 2031.300 (b).) The party who fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand unless the court finds that the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance or party’s failure was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (a)(1)- (2).)

Courts shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant served Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two on Plaintiff on February 13, 2024. (Kohrs Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Responses were due March 18, 2024. Since then, no responses have been served. (Id. ¶ 3.)  Therefore, because responses have not been served, the motion to compel is granted.

Defendant also requests $2,475 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel only, as opposed to Plaintiff and his counsel. This represents an hourly rate of $250. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Sanctions against counsel:¿ The court in Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 81 (Hennings) noted that discovery sanctions against an attorney are governed by a different standard than sanctions against a party:¿¿ 

By the terms of the statute, a trial court under section 2023.030(a) may not impose monetary sanctions against a party’s attorney unless the court finds that the attorney “advised” the party to engage in the conduct resulting in sanctions. (§ 2023.030(a); Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.)¿ “Unlike monetary sanctions against a party, which are based on the party’s misuse of the discovery process, monetary sanctions against the party’s attorney require a finding the ‘attorney advis[ed] that conduct.’ ” (Ibid.) “It is not enough that the attorney's actions were in some way improper.” (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 200, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247 (Corns).) Because an attorney's advice to a client is “peculiarly within [his or her] knowledge,” the attorney has the burden of showing that he or she did not counsel discovery abuse. (Ibid.) Accordingly, when a party seeking sanctions against an attorney offers sufficient evidence of a misuse of the discovery process, the burden shifts to the attorney to demonstrate that he or she did not recommend that conduct. (Id. at pp. 200–201, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247; Ghanooni, at p. 262, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.)¿ 

Here, Defendant provides evidence of a misuse of the discovery process given the lack of response. Since Plaintiff does not provide an opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel fails to demonstrate that he did not counsel that conduct. Therefore, the Court finds sanctions are warranted, but the amount is excessive given the type of motion and the fact no opposition was filed. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $500 (2 hours of attorney time).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two is GRANTED. Plaintiff Bruce Follings shall provide verified responses, without objection, within 10 days.

The Court further grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel of record in the reduced amount of $500.00. Said monetary sanctions shall be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.