Judge Cynthia A Freeland, Case 37-2023-00018846-CU-PO-NC 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2023-00018846-CU-PO-NC, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024 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 - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00018846-CU-PO-NC GUTH VS ICETOWN CARLSBAD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 12/19/2023

Defendant Icetown Carlsbad ('Icetown')'s motion to compel Plaintiff Jennifer Curry Guth ('Plaintiff') to provide responses to written discovery, and for sanctions, is granted in part and denied in part.

The uncontroverted evidence establishes that on October 9, 2023, Defendant electronically served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and Request for Admission (Set One) (collectively, the 'Discovery Requests'). See Goldman Decl., Exs. A-E. Plaintiff's responses were initially due by November 10, 2023. See Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 1010.6(a)(3)(B), 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a). On November 14, 2023, Defendant's counsel's paralegal sent Plaintiff's counsel a meet and confer e-mail regarding the outstanding discovery and requesting that responses be received by November 22, 2023. See Goldman Decl., Exs. F-G; Johnson Decl., Exs. F-G. That same day, Plaintiff's counsel requested, and Defendant's counsel granted, an extension of time for Plaintiff to serve responses to the Discovery Requests to December 4, 2023. Ibid., Exs. H-J. On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel requested, and Defendant's counsel granted, a further extension of time for Plaintiff to serve responses to the Discovery Requests to December 8, 2023. Ibid., Exs. K-M. To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses to the Discovery Requests.

The court finds that the motion, in part, is procedurally deficient. More specifically, it is unclear what relief Defendant is seeking. The motion is captioned as Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff's 'Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Requset [sic] for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Attorney of Record[.]' However, the Notice of Motion states that that Defendant is seeking responses only as to the Form Interrogatories. See Notice of Motion, p. 2, ll. 4-5. At the same time, Mr. Goldman's declaration states that Defendant is seeking responses 'to Form Interrogatories, which were served on December 2, 2020', notwithstanding the fact that the subject Form Interrogatories were electronically served on October 9, 2023, not December 2, 2020. See Goldman Decl., ¶ 13. On the other hand, Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities cite California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), and 2033.280(b), suggesting that Defendant seeks an order compelling responses to all the Discovery Requests. This is consistent with the exhibits attached to Mr. Goldman's and Ms.

Johnson's declarations, which demonstrate that Plaintiff did not provide responses to any of the Discovery Requests. That being said, it remains unclear which of the Discovery Requests are properly subject to the pending motion. Given that Defendant omitted the Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admission from the Notice of Motion, the court must conclude that Plaintiff has not been given proper notice that Defendant is seeking an order compelling her to provide responses to those requests. Consequently, to the extent Defendant moves to compel Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3064397 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: GUTH VS ICETOWN CARLSBAD [IMAGED] 37-2023-00018846-CU-PO-NC responses to those requests, the motion is denied without prejudice. The court does, however, grant the motion as to the Form Interrogatories.

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 case, Plaintiff, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met her burden of demonstrating that she was substantially justified in failing to provide timely responses to the Form Interrogatories or that other circumstances render the imposition of sanctions unjust. Accordingly, the court awards Defendant sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,110.00.

In light of the foregoing, the court: (1) grants the motion as to the Form Interrogatories and directs Plaintiff to serve verified, Code-compliant responses to the Form Interrogatories within fourteen (14) days of this hearing; (2) denies the motion without prejudice as to the Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admission; and (3) awards Defendant $1,110.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney, Mark D. Ringsmuth, Esq. of Morgan & Morgan LA LLC, jointly and severally, due and payable to Defendant within thirty (30) days of this hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, March 29, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of March 29, 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

3064397