Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2021-00024180-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00024180-CU-PA-CTL CUMMINGS VS HOWARD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Sanctions, 10/17/2023

Defendant Hope Howard's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

As background, on May 12, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part (attorney fees) Defendant's motion to compel answers to discovery. (ROA 51.) In this motion, Defendant maintains Plaintiff did not comply with the Court's order to provide responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories and documents.

Defendant first brought an ex parte seeking an order shortening time and provided a copy of the motion for sanctions. (ROA 55.) The Court denied the ex parte. (ROA 56.) At an OSC Why the Case Should Not Be Dismissed, the Court scheduled this motion for sanctions for November 3.

All moving and supporting motion papers 'shall' be filed and served 16 court-days before the motion hearing. (C.C.P., § 1005(b).) Here, Defendant filed a 'courtesy copy' of the motion on October 17, 2023, and 13 court-days before the hearing. Defendant acknowledges it is not the same motion previously served on Plaintiff on August 17, 2023, as it is only 'substantively almost identical.' C.C.P. section 1005(b) does not provide any exception for 'substantively almost identical' motion papers being served with less than the required notice. This motion seeks significant sanctions and due notice is required.

Defendant also does not explain why this motion could not have been filed and served 16 court-days before the hearing and why she did not seek leave for an order shortening time.

Further, contrary to Defendant's position, a separate statement is plainly required. California Rules of Court rule (CRC) 3.1345(a)(7) expressly requires a separate statement for a motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions. (See also, Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group, June 2023), at § 8:2316 ['A motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions must be accompanied by a separate document setting forth the particular discovery requests at issue, the responses thereto, and the reasons why such sanctions should be imposed' citing CRC 3.1345(a)(7)]; Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893 (concluding trial court was within its discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery for noncompliance with separate statement requirement).) Defendant does not provide any case law interpreting CRC 3.1345(a)(7) not to require a separate statement when discovery responses are not received.

Moreover, Defendant did not specify what issue and evidentiary sanctions she wants, nor provided the discovery requests Plaintiff did not respond to. The proposed order merely states, 'Issue Sanctions are awarded...' Defendant did not state which facts she seeks the Court to order taken as established or what evidence Defendant wants Plaintiff prohibited from introducing. (C.C.P., § 2023.030(b)-(c).) This Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3023752  46 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CUMMINGS VS HOWARD [IMAGED]  37-2021-00024180-CU-PA-CTL creates a notice issue and precludes the Court from assessing the sanctions requested. (See, C.C.P., § 2023.040.) For these reasons, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Defendant is ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final ruling on all appearing parties by November 7, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3023752  46