Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 21STCV40615, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 21STCV40615, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40615 Hearing Date: October 24, 2024 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 10/24/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 21STCV40615
Trial Date: 02/07/2025
Case Name: JUAN PEREZ ROJAS, et al. v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Motion with CRS # 8766

BACKGROUND
Movant, Cross-Defendant, explains the Background of this case as follows:

This matter arises out of a three-car traffic accident. Plaintiffs allege that on or about July 18, 2020, Ronald Wilkinson and Christopher Le were “driving their respective motor vehicles eastbound on SR-60 in the County of Los Angeles. At that time and place, each of the defendants so negligently and carelessly entrusted, drove, operated, controlled, managed, supervised, and maintained their respective motor vehicles so as to cause them to collide with plaintiffs' vehicle and injure plaintiffs.” Against CalTrans only, Plaintiffs allege that “defendant CALTRANS, including the employees and/or agents under its control, were negligent and careless in the design construction, modification, repair, inspection, operation, and/or maintenance of the subject roadway that CALTRANS: (1) re-painted the roadway such that it was difficult for drivers to discern between the new traffic lanes vs. old traffic lanes; (2) reduced the overall roadway width; and (3) caused the roadway to exist in an aggressive serpentine manner” resulting in the incident. On January 6, 2023, Guy F. Atkinson Construction answered C.R. England and Ronald Wilkinson’s Cross-Complaint. These same entities later cross-complained against moving party BC Rentals LLC and filed their First Amended Cross-Complaint on March 27, 2023.

(Mot. p. 3.)

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Cross-Defendant BC RENTALS LLC (“Cross-Defendant”) hereby does move the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff KATELYN PEREZ (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) to immediately produce verified further responses to Cross-Defendant’s special interrogatories, set one, nos. 1-6; and verified further responses and all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control to Cross-Defendant’s request for production of documents, set one, nos. 1, 11, 12, 16, 43, 49, 50, and 56, without objections. This Motion should be granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, 2031.310, and 2031.320, for the following reasons: Plaintiff waived objections to the subject discovery demands as they were not served timely (Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(a) and 2033.280(a)); and, there are no substantive responses provided. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, and as detailed in the accompanying Declaration of Jeffrey Morris, counsel for Cross-Defendant sent a meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel on August 12, 2024, in a good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by this Motion. There was no response to the meet and confer effort, thereby necessitating this Motion. This Motion is based on this Notice; the Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the concurrently filed Separate Statement; the Declaration of Jeffrey Morris, and accompanying exhibits; the pleadings and papers on file in this matter; and such other evidence and argument as is allowed in connection with this Motion. In addition, it is requested that this court take notice of the previously filed 12 motions to compel discovery against plaintiffs.”

(Mot. p. 1-2.)

Preliminary Procedural Analysis

Moving Party: Cross-Defendant, BC Rentals LLC

Responding Party: No response by Plaintiff, Katelyn Perez

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP § 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): No – Movant served Plaintiff’s attorney via electronic transmission at the following four email addresses: (1) abrown@daydayandbrown.com (2) elizabeth@daydayandbrown.com (3) megan@daydayandbrown.com (4) admin@daydayandbrown.com. On eCourt, Plaintiff’s counsel is listed as Trevor Herrera, and Herrera is listed with an email address of therrera@daydayandbrown.com. Since Movant did not serve the email address listed on eCourt for Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court will hear argument.

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order; Separate Statement

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply Papers: No Reply

Improperly Combining Motions
A motion must be brought separately as to each discovery method at issue. The instant motion should have been filed as two separate motions and two filing fees paid. Instead, Cross-Defendant filed only one motion to compel further responses to two different discovery instruments: special interrogatories and requests for production. “[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu vs. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4^th 1261, 1269.)

Two separate hearing reservations should have been reserved for these two motions to compel further. In the future, Cross-Defendant is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees.

Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

The Court will hear both of the motions pertaining to CRS # 8766 if Cross-Defendant pays an additional $60 filing fee and provides proof of payment at the hearing.

LEGAL STANDARD - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

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.

(CCP § 2030.300(a).)

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

“While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP § 2030.210(a).)

PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS

45-Day Requirement
“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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.300(c).)

Here, Movant’s motion appears timely.

Meet and Confer
“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, Movant included the declaration of Jeffrey Morris wherein a meet and confer was alleged in ¶5 of the declaration. (Morris Decl. ¶ 5.) Morris states that no response was received to his meet and confer.

SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS SROGs
On April 29, 2024, Cross-Defendant served Plaintiff, Katelyn Perez, Special Interrogatories, Set One. Under CCP § 2030.260(a), the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original responses within 30 days after service of interrogatories. (See CCP § 2030.260(a).)

Here, Plaintiff did not provide responses until July 14, 2024, which was not within 30 days of service of the interrogatories. Therefore, Plaintiff waived asserting objections to the responses because the initial responses were not timely. “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

Cross-Defendant seeks to compel further responses to special interrogatories numbered 1-6. For all 6 of these SROGs, Plaintiff responded with, “Objection. This interrogatory calls for Plaintiff to conduct legal analysis and proffer legal conclusions.”

Cross-Defendant argues that further responses are necessary because Plaintiff waived all objections by serving late responses, and no substantive response was provided.

The Court finds Cross-Defendant’s argument availing.

Here, Plaintiff’s responses were untimely; thus, objections were waived. Further, Plaintiff did not file a motion for relief from waiver of objections under 2030.290(a). Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections were improper.

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(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.”

(CCP § 2031.310(a).)

Under CCP § 2031.310(b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

“In the more specific context of a demand for production of a tangible thing, the party who asks the trial court to compel production must show “good cause” for the request—but unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS RFPs

On April 29, 2024, Cross-Defendant served Plaintiff, Katelyn Perez, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff did not provide responses until July 14, 2024.

Cross-Defendant seeks to compel further responses to RFPs numbered 1, 11, 12, 16, 43, 49, 50, and 56.

Below, the Court will include the RFPs at issue and the corresponding responses from Plaintiff.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Any and all DOCUMENTS that demonstrate that BC RENTALS, LLC caused any of the injuries or damages (‘harm’) allegedly sustained by YOU as a result of the INCIDENT.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Objection. This request calls for Plaintiff to conduct legal analysis and proffer legal conclusions.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to BC RENTALS, LLC’S Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded to YOU and served concurrently with this Request.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

Objection. This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO communications by and between YOU and any of the PARTIES RELATING TO the INCIDENT.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

Objection. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the INCIDENT.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Objection. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, invasive, and violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:

Any and all diaries/journals you kept wherein you reference the facts of how the INCIDENT occurred.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:

Objection. This request is invasive, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:

Any and all DOCUMENTS that suggest, or evidence, that BC RENTALS, LLC breached a duty to YOU.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:

Objection. This request calls for Plaintiff to conduct legal analysis and proffer a legal conclusion.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:

Any and all DOCUMENTS that suggest, or evidence, that BC RENTALS, LLC caused (i.e., was a substantial factor in causing) the INCIDENT.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:

Objection. This request calls for Plaintiff to conduct legal analysis and proffer a legal conclusion.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56:

All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR response to BC RENTALS, LLC’S Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded to YOU and served concurrently with this request.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56:

Objection. This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome.

As to the aforementioned RFPs (1, 11, 12, 16, 43, 49, 50, and 56), Cross-Defendant argues that the reason why further responses is warranted is because “Plaintiff has waived any and all objections by serving late responses per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(a), and no substantive response is provided.” (Sep. Stmt. p. 4-6.)

Here, the Court will hear argument for the reasons explained below.

Movant is correct to note that by Plaintiff not providing responses within 30 days of service of the demands, Plaintiff did not provide timely responses; thus, Plaintiff waived objections. (See CCP § 2031.260(a) and 2031.300(a).)

However, even though Plaintiff improperly asserted objections for her responses, Cross-Defendant (Movant) was the one with the burden to establish good cause in this motion.

Under CCP § 2031.310(b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

Here, Movant/Cross-Defendant does not attempt to explain a fact-specific showing of relevance for each RFP at issue in this motion. All that Movant does in its argument for compelling further responses is point out that Plaintiff improperly asserted objections; Movant does not attempt to explain a fact-specific showing of relevance for each RFP at issue.

Further, Movant did not comply with CRC, Rule 3.1345(c)(4) and 3.1345(c)(5).

For example, RFP 11 requests “All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to BC RENTALS, LLC’S Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded to YOU and served concurrently with this Request.” Therefore, RFP 11 appears to implicate CRC, Rule 3.1345(c)(5). “The separate statement must include-for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested-the following: If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth[.]” (CRC, Rule 3.1345(c)(5).)

RFP 56 also appears to implicate CRC, Rule 3.1345(c)(5).

Additionally, RFPs 1, 12, 16, 43, and 50 include the defined term “Incident,” which appears to implicate CRC, Rule 3.1345(c)(4). “The separate statement must include-for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested-the following: If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it[.]” (CRC, Rule 3.1345(c)(4).)

TENTATIVE RULING MOTION CRS 8766
The Court will hear argument about the service issue that it pointed out.

The Court will hear argument about the filing fee issue that it pointed out in the section titled “Improperly Combining Motions.”

The Court is inclined to compel further, verified responses without objections to SROGs, Set One, Numbers 1-6.

The Court will hear argument as to RFPs, Set One, numbers 1, 11, 12, 16, 43, 49, 50, and 56 based on the Court’s analysis in its section titled “SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS RFPs.”

Sanctions

“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 a further response to interrogatories, 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.” (CCP § 2030.300(d).)

Except as provided in subdivision (j), 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. (CCP §2031.310(h).)

“The 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).)

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the caption on the notice page requests sanctions in the amount of $1,656.00; however, the first and only paragraph on the notice page does not indicate that Cross-Defendant is seeking sanctions.

“A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (CRC, Rule 3.1110(a).)

The Court will hear argument as to this discrepancy with respect to sanctions not being requested in the opening paragraph.

Cross-Defendant requests sanctions be imposed against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,656.00. Cross-Defendant argues that there is no excuse or justification for Plaintiff’s refusal to provide substantive responses to the subject discovery or include waived objections.

Cross-Defendant’s counsel, Jeffrey Morris, bases this request on the following: (1) Hourly rate of $230.00; (2) 3.5 hours drafting moving papers; (3) Anticipating 0.7 hours reviewing opposition papers; (4) 2 hours drafting a Reply; (5) 1 hour attending the hearing. (See Morris Decl. ¶ 6.)

The Court will hear argument. The Court notes that no Opposition was submitted to review, and the Court notes that no reply was drafted.

TENTATIVE RULINGS - MOTIONS WITH CRS # 6121, 9230, 9216
Motion 6121, and the issues and analysis implicated therein, is identical to Motion 8766. The only difference is that the order is sought against Plaintiff, Kevin Perez.

Motion 9230, and the issues and analysis implicated therein, is identical to Motion 8766. The only difference is that the order is sought against Plaintiff, Jennifer Navarro.

Motion 9216, and the issues and analysis implicated therein, is identical to Motion 8766. The only difference is that the order is sought against Plaintiff, Juan Perez Rojas.

Therefore, with respect to Motions 6121, 9230, and 9216, this Court adopts the same ruling as Motion 8766 with respect to the preliminary procedural analysis, improperly combining motions, procedural analysis, substantive analysis SROGs, substantive analysis RFPs, Tentative Ruling Motion CRS 8766, and Sanctions.