Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a car accident.  Plaintiff Yvonne Buchanan was driving eastbound on Wilshire Boulevard approaching the intersection with South Swall Drive in the City of Beverly Hills when she was struck by Defendant Arwa Das’ car.  Plaintiff claims Defendant suddenly and without warning entered the intersection, passing a posted stop sign for his direction of travel, causing a collision with Plaintiff’s car.   

This hearing is on Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to his requests for production (set two) and special interrogatories (set two) and for sanctions.  An informal discovery conference (“IDC”) was held on these issues, where the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide further responses by November 20, 2023.  Plaintiff did not provide further responses until December 4, 2023, and Defendant argues the further responses are still deficient because they fail to describe the reasonable investigation performed to uncover the requested information or documents.   

JOINT STATEMENT 

On a motion to compel further responses, this Department’s rules require the moving party to file a joint statement consisting of four columns: the first column will identify the number of the discovery request; the second, the text of the discovery request; the third, the text of the response, and the fourth, brief bullet-point statements, one from each party as to why a further response should or should not be compelled.   

Defendant filed a “joint” statement but it did not include Plaintiff’s position.  Defendant represents that he sent a draft joint statement to Plaintiff’s counsel on February 26, 2024, asking Plaintiff to provide her portion.  (Shapiro Decl. ¶5.)  In response and throughout subsequent meet and confer emails, Plaintiff’s counsel took the position that Defendant’s motions were mooted by their further responses, and counsel would not provide their portion of the joint statement.  (Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.)  On these facts, the Court concludes Defendant has sufficiently met his obligations to comply with the Court’s local rule regarding the filing of a joint statement.  Also, given Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in the filing of the joint statement, the Court declines to consider her opposition to the motions to compel.       

DISCUSSION 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 24-25 and Inspection Demand Nos. 17-18 are still deficient because they fail to describe the reasonable investigation Plaintiff performed to answer the interrogatories or search for the documents.  The Court agrees. 

When responding to interrogatories, parties cannot feign ignorance by claiming an inability to respond.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406.)  They must perform a reasonable investigation to answer interrogatories.  (Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220 subd. (c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.)  And “[i]f a person cannot furnish details [after the investigation], he should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.”  (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.)   

In a similar vein, a party who is unable to produce documents in response to an inspection demand is required to explain why the documents are unavailable and who else may be in possession of them.  (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.230.)  Section 2031.230 states “[a] representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.  This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” 

Here, Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 24-25 does not describe the efforts she made to secure the information.  Likewise, Plaintiff’s further responses to Inspection Demand Nos. 17-18 does not describe Plaintiff’s investigation.  The responses to the inspection demands also do not state whether the inability to comply is because the documents requested never existed, have been destroyed, or have been lost, misplaced or stolen.  The responses also fail to set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known to have possession, custody or control of the documents.  For these reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel further responses.    

Defendant also seeks sanctions because they argue Plaintiff misused the discovery process by failing to provide the further discovery responses within the deadline set by the Court at the IDC hearing and by serving further responses that are still not code-compliant.  The Court agrees. 

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c),¿2031.300(c).) 

Also, under¿Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(a), “[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. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)  Failing to provide timely, code-compliant responses is a misuse of the discovery process. 

Here, Plaintiff failed to provide timely, code-compliant responses and unsuccessfully opposed a motion to compel.  Plaintiff has provided no substantial justification for her conduct.  Indeed, she failed to even disclose in her Opposition that while she served further responses, she failed to do so by the deadline set by the Court.  Because she hid this fact in her Opposition, she never provides an explanation as to why she failed to respond by the Court-ordered deadline.     

In setting the amount of sanctions, the Court uses the lodestar approach which is the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by reasonable hourly rate.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)  “The amount to be awarded in attorney’s fees is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”  (Id.) 

The Court finds counsel’s hourly rate of $160.17 to be reasonable.  However, the instant motions are largely duplicative.  Billing seven hours for each motion is redundant--seven hours for both motions is sufficient.  Accordingly, for both motions, the Court will award $1,121.19 in attorney fees plus the $120 in filing fees. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel further responses and for sanctions.  The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,241.19 to be paid by Plaintiff to Defendant within 30 days of this Order.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: April 19, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court