Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV03391, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03391    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant The Hertz Corporation's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Defendant The Hertz Corporation’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Defendant The Hertz Corporation’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

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

BACKGROUND

On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff Haran Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”), Lyft Inc. (“Lyft”) and Eme Nkugba (“Nkugba”) for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, products liability and negligence per se.

On November 4, 2021, Lyft filed an answer. On January 11, 2022, Hertz filed an answer.

On September 30, 2022, Hertz filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses to be heard on December 14, 2022. On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 3, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Hertz requests the Court grant the motions to compel discovery within 10 days of the hearing on the motion. Romero also requests the Court impose sanctions of $487.50 for each motion.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motions as moot, deny Hertz’s request for sanctions.

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 May 26, 2022, Hertz served discovery on Plaintiff. Responses were due on June 28, 2022. Hertz offered an extension to by September 29, 2022. Plaintiff did not serve responses prior to the filing of this motion.

Plaintiff has since served discovery responses with verifications. The motion to compel is now moot.

Sanctions

Sanctions are warranted. Although Plaintiff’s counsel states that responses were not delivered due to Plaintiff’s medical condition, Hertz is still entitled to timely discovery responses. Plaintiff had months prior to the extended deadline of September 29, 2022, to obtain these responses—especially given that Plaintiff only contracted Covid-19 a few days before the extended deadline. By failing to provide timely, code-compliant responses, Plaintiff has misused the discovery process.

Romero requests sanctions of $487.50 for each motion, based upon 2.5 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $195.00 per hour. 1.5 hours were spent drafting the motion and 1 hour is anticipated in attending the hearing on the motion. All three motions are substantially similar and are being heard concurrently. Based on the above, the Court awards sanctions totaling $877.50 across all motions, based upon 4.5 hours of attorney’s work.

CONCLUSION

Defendant The Hertz Corporation's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is MOOT. Defendant The Hertz Corporation’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is MOOT. Defendant The Hertz Corporation’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is MOOT.

Defendant The Hertz Corporation's Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay Romero $877.50 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the 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.