Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01991, Date: 2025-03-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV01991 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff’s MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF INTORROGATORIES/DOCUMENTS, SET
ONE AND MONETARY SANCTION is GRANTED, but sanctions are not granted as
self-represented litigants are not entitled to recovery of such costs.
Background
This case
arises from a motor vehicle accident that happened in July 2022.
On July 5,
2023, Plaintiff Joss Jesus Gonzalez filed suit against Ivan ds Jesus Comparan
Ponce for a Motor Vehicle cause of action, and also seeking exemplary damages
on the allegation that “Defendant was driving in such a manner that he was
distracted and texting and driving. There were also numerous beer cans thrown
out of the vehicle by defendant.”
On August 2,
2023, Defendant filed his answer.
On December
7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney stating that he is
now representing himself and denoting former counsel as Suzanne Parrazzo.
On October 7,
2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.
On October
16, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of association of counsel naming Benjamin
Zeng as his newly retained counsel. (Counsel Zeng’s offices are located in
Baton Rouge, LA.)
On November
13, 2024, Defendant filed a ‘substitution of attorney’ stating the same as the
10/16/24 filing.
On December
9, 2024, the court held its hearing on the discovery motion. The minute order
states in relevant part the following: “The parties represent that they intend
to meet and confer informally in an attempt to resolve the case. The Court
rules as follows: Pursuant to oral stipulation, the Hearing on Motion to Compel
Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (PER THE COURT - Filed by Jose
Gonzalez scheduled for 12/09/2024, and Case Management Conference scheduled for
12/09/2024 are continued to 03/10/2025 at 10:00 AM in Department O at Pomona
Courthouse South. Should the case settle, the Court expects the parties to file
either a Notice of Settlement or a Request for Dismissal prior to the next
court date.”
Discussion
Plaintiff
seeks to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs which he served on
Defendant on 4/29/24.
As a
preliminary matter, the court notes the subject discovery are not RFPs
but rather interrogatories. (See Motion, p. 6 of 16 of PDF
[Interrogatories Set One].) The purposes of
interrogatories include eliciting information that is reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, obtaining admissions, narrowing
the issues, reducing the possibilities of surprise and unfair tactical
gamesmanship or advantage at trial, facilitating disposition prior to trial
through settlement or through summary judgment, and facilitating trial
preparation. Interrogatories also may be used as a means of obtaining
information needed in order to make use of other discovery procedures.
Here, a review of the interrogatories indicates that the questions are
relevant–e.g., whether Defendant has insurance coverage and whether Defendant
has ever previously been tested for substances by law enforcement. To the
extent that the interrogatories are overbroad, vague, irrelevant, privileged,
or would otherwise invade a constitutional right to privacy, no opposition has
been filed. Thus, the motion is granted.
As for sanctions, a pro se litigant cannot recover attorney’s fees as a
discovery sanction. (See Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th
1051, 1016-1017 [“We distill this wholly inadequate solution for all pro se
litigants—including pro selawyers—who have prevailed on motions to compel
responses to requests for production of documents: A pro se litigant cannot recover attorney's fees as
a discovery sanction, but he can recover the “reasonable expenses” he has “incurred,” including photocopying,
computer-assisted legal research, and other identifiable and allocable
costs.”].)[1]
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted insofar as Defendant is to
respond to discovery but denied insofar as to sanctions.
[1]
Plaintiff states the following in paragraph 5 of his declaration: “ I ask that
the court award sanctions of $amount of sanctions. | base my request for the
imposition of a sanction on basis that it took me number of hours hours [sic]
to research and prepare the instant motion. My hourly wage is $your wages per
hour times number of hours listed above hours equals $hours times your wages.
In addition, the motion filing fee for this motion was $filing fee.”