Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV09485, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV09485    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Southern California Edison Company’s Motion to Compel Ameron Pole Products, LLC’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On March 19, 2019, Plaintiff Salvador Ocampos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), City of Walnut Park (“Walnut Park”) and City of Huntington Park (“Huntington Park”) for premises liability.

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed the FAC. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”), Ameron Pole Products LLC (“APP”) and Foddrill Construction Corporation (“FCC”).

On July 24, 2019, the Court dismissed Huntington Park, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On June 23, 2022, the Court dismissed FCC, with prejudice.

On June 17, 2020, the County filed an answer. On June 11, 2020, the County filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant SCE for indemnity, express indemnity, breach of contract, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. The County later amended the complaint to include APP, FCC, Roberto Sanchez Gomez (“Gomez”), Julio Cesar Anzadula (“Anzadula”) and The Diamond Bus Company, LLC (“DBC”). On August 26, 2020, SCE filed an answer. On December 28, 2020, APP filed an answer. On May 2, 2022, the Court dismissed the County and the County’s cross-complaint, without prejudice.

On August 7, 2020, SCE field an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant APP for total equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief and express contractual indemnity. SCE later amended the Cross-Complaint to include Cross-Defendant Gomez, Anzadula, FCC and DBC. On October 14, 2020, APP filed an answer. On July 6, 2022, FCC filed an answer.

On January 19, 2023, SCE filed a Motion to Compel APP’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents to be heard on February 15, 2023. On February 1, 2023, APP filed an opposition. On February 8, 2023, SCE filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for June 12, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

SCE requests the Court grant the motions to compel responses to request for discovery within 10 days of the hearing on the motion. SCE requests the Court impose sanctions of $1,060.00 on APP.

APP requests the Court deny the motion and grant sanctions totaling $1,960.00.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” According to CCP § 2030.260, for a response to interrogatories to be timely, it must be served within 30 days of service.  CCP § 2031.260 provides the same 30-day deadline for request for production responses.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides that “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” According to CCP §2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c) states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney 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.”

DISCUSSION

Discovery

On October 7, 2022, SCE served discovery on APP. Responses were due on November 8, 2022. On November 8, 2022, APP served responses consisting of only objections, without verification. SCE attempted to meet and confer with Ameron, requesting multiple extensions to respond to the letter, but has yet to provide a response.

APP argues that this should have been filed as a motion to compel further responses; the deadline for such a motion has passed as of December 27, 2022. APP’s response consisted of only objections, which, under CCP § 2031.250(a) does not require verifications. APP is correct in that it served code-compliant initial responses. SCE needed to file a Motion to Compel Further within the applicable deadline in order for the Court to rule on the motion. SCE did not file a timely motion, and thus the Court denies the motion.

Sanctions

As SCE filed an improper and untimely motion, the Court finds a basis for sanctions. APP requests sanctions totaling $1,960.00, based on 7 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $280.00 per hour. 1 hour was spent reading the moving papers, 5 hours were spent drafting the opposition, and 1 hour was spent reading the reply. The Court grants sanctions totaling $840.00, based on 3 hours of attorney’s work.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Southern California Edison Company’s Motion to Compel Ameron Pole Products, LLC’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents is DENIED.

Defendant Southern California Edison Company’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant Ameron Pole Products, LLC’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. SCE and SCE’s counsel are ordered to pay APP $840.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.