Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV00996, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00996    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: 14

Flores v. Sassy Production Locations

Case Background

Plaintiff alleges that the parties were engaged in a partnership to repair and sell a certain piece of property. Plaintiff supplied the cash and labor, Defense supplied the real property. Plaintiff alleges that Defense failed to convey half title to the property, and refuses to pay a proper share of the profits, as required by the partnership agreement.

In turn, Defense alleges that Plaintiff has failed to fulfill his labor duties as spelled out in that same agreement.

Complaint

            On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Anticipatory Breach, (3) Breach of the Implied Covenant, (4) Misrepresentation, (5) Negligence, and (6) Declaratory Relief against Defendants Sassy Production Locations LLC (“Sassy”), Leslie Moore (“Moore”), and DOES 1-20.

            On March 24, 2023, Defendants Sassy and Moore filed their joint Answer.

Cross-Complaint

            On March 27, 2023, Defendants Sassy and Moore filed their Cross-Complaint for Breach of Contract against Plaintiff and ROES 1-25.

            On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed his Answer.

Trial Date

            Bench trial is currently set for April 29, 2024.

(1)-(3) Motions to Compel

            Defendants/Cross-Complainants now move this court for orders compelling Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant to serve responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, as well as Requests for Production. Defendants/Cross-Complainants also seek monetary sanctions.

Decision

            The motions are TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT. The sanctions requests are DENIED.

Discussion

            The facts underlying this motion are not in dispute. Defendants served discovery on September 5, 2023. Responses were due on October 9, 2023. Counsel agreed to extend the deadline to October 23, 2023. None were served on that date.

            The next day, October 24, 2023, Defense counsel gave Plaintiff’s counsel an unsolicited additional extension of one week, to October 31, 2023. Plaintiff responded with a complaint about the length of the discovery request and asked for November 7, 2023. Defense agreed.

But on November 6, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed to ask for another extension, to November 17, 2023. There was no response. On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed again, this time promising responses “as soon as possible.” On November 14, 2023, Defense counsel responded, demanding responses by the next day.

Further email exchanges consisted of complaints from Defense counsel and shifting goalposts from Plaintiff. These motions were ultimately filed and served on November 30, 2023. As it happened, Plaintiff served his responses the same day.

Since responses have been served, the motions are clearly MOOT. The only reason they remain on the court’s calendar is to decide the issue of sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300 require the court to award monetary sanctions “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.”

The court views this situation fundamentally as a failure to communicate on both sides. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet their initial, self-imposed deadline; they also failed to contact Defense to address the situation ahead of that deadline. Then, Plaintiff failed to offer Defense any kind of explanation as to why their deadlines kept shifting backwards.

On the Defense side, counsel never sought any explanation. They did not respond at all to one of Plaintiff’s emails, then their next response was outrage and an unrealistic demand for responses by the next day. Their next and final email carried the same tone.

The terse, uninformative nature of the conversation between counsel appears to be a function of the fact that it occurred entirely over email. Reference to this department’s Courtroom Information page would have shown counsel the court’s preference for verbal, real-time communication, which serves to avoid situations just such as this. In future, this court expects counsel to physically speak with one another. Emails can memorialize a conversation, but they are not an adequate substitute for one.

Conclusion

            Since responses have been served, the motions are TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT. For the reasons given above, the court finds that circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

(4)       Requests for Admissions

Defendants/Cross-Complainants now move this court for an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Set No. One, served on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant as admitted by him. Defendants/Cross-Complainants also seek sanctions of $3,120.00.

Decision

            The motion is TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant is ORDERED to pay $1,560.00 in sanctions. The amount is to be delivered to counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants within 30 days.

Discussion

            The history of this discovery is the same as the three motions discussed above. However, as counsel know, Requests for Admissions are different from other discovery requests. While the purpose of other discovery devices is to provide information and make evidence available for trial, Requests for Admissions directly frame the issues to be tried. For this reason, the legislature has treated them with much more urgency, affording extra remedies like the one sought here (or an award of attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420 for having to prove a matter that the opposing party refused to admit) to the requesting parties.

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c) contains no exception permitting the court to decline a sanction request. Instead, it directly instructs the court to impose monetary sanctions even if responses have subsequently been served.