Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2022-00010788-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00010788-CU-PA-NC SARMIENTO VS HAMMOND [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 09/18/2023

Plaintiff Richard Tomas Sarmiento ('Plaintiff')'s motion to compel Defendants Danielle Hammond and Alan Hammond (collectively, 'Defendants') to provide initial responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One), and for sanctions, is granted in part and denied in part.

The court construes Defendants' lack of opposition as a concession of the motion's merits. See San Diego Rules of Court, Rule 2.1.19.B. In addition, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that on July 26, 2023, Plaintiff electronically served each Defendant with the subject discovery. See Mashburn Decl., Exs. A-D. Defendants' responses were initially due by August 29, 2023. See Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 1010.6(a)(3)(B), 2030.260(a). On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendants' counsel a meet and confer correspondence regarding the outstanding discovery and requesting responses within seven days. See Mashburn Decl., Ex. E. To date, Defendants have not served responses to the subject discovery. Ibid., ¶ 7. The foregoing constitutes good cause to grant the motion. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2030.290(b).

The court may award sanctions to the party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition to the motion was filed. See Cal. R. Ct. 3.1348(a). The court must impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a 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.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2030.290(c). The party subject to sanctions bears the burden of proving that he or she acted with substantial justification. See Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc.

(2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1424, 1435 (citing Cal. Evid. Code §§ 500 and 550; Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 967, 971). Substantial justification means justification that is clearly reasonable because it is well grounded in both law and fact. See Doe, 200 Cal. App. 4th at 1434 (citing Nader Automotive Group, LLC v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 1478, 1480). In this instance, the court finds that Plaintiff's sanctions request is procedurally deficient. To obtain sanctions, a party seeking sanctions must, in his or her notice of motion: (1) identify every person, party, and attorney against whom a sanction is sought; (2) specify the type of sanction that is sought; (3) include a supporting memorandum of points and authorities; and (4) include a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2023.040; Blumenthal v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 103 Cal. App. 3d 317, 320. In this case, while Defendants did not oppose the motion and, therefore, did not demonstrate the requisite substantial justification for their failure to respond to the subject discovery, Plaintiff's Notice of Motion does not comply with the prescriptions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.040. Consequently, the court concludes that, under the circumstances, the issuance of sanctions would be unjust and not in accordance with the principles of due process.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3019707 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SARMIENTO VS HAMMOND [IMAGED]  37-2022-00010788-CU-PA-NC In light of the foregoing, the court: (1) grants the motion to compel and orders Defendants to serve verified Code-compliant responses, without objections, to the subject discovery within fourteen (14) days of this hearing, and (2) denies Plaintiff's sanctions request.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, January 5, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of January 5, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3019707