Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 24CHCV01862, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV01862, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV01862 Hearing Date: December 3, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 12-04-24

Case # 24CHCV01862, de Campos v. Jenkins

Trial Date: None set.

MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Deyanira Serafin De Campos

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Gussie Jenkins

RELIEF REQUESTED

Compel Defendant’s initial responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and sanctions.

RULING: Motion is denied. Plaintiff is awarded $1,060.00 in sanctions.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Deyanira Serafin de Campos (Plaintiff) filed this personal injury action against Defendant Gussie Jenkins (Defendant) on May 14, 2024 alleging a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. The complaint alleges Defendant’s reckless driving caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries and damages.

Plaintiff propounded on Defendant her Requests for Production, Set One on June 27, 2024. Defendant did not serve responses by November 5, 2024.

On November 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel initial responses to her Requests for Production, Set One. Defendant filed an opposition on November 21, 2024. Plaintiff replied on November 25, 2024.

Summary of Arguments

Plaintiff argues the Court should grant this motion because Plaintiff granted Defendant four (4) extensions to provide responses, but Defendant did not comply. (Lingenfelter Dec., Esq., ¶¶ 3-6.) Plaintiff also requests $1,310.00 in sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel because Plaintiff gave Defendant and her counsel a full and fair opportunity to submit responses through multiple meet and confer efforts. (Lingenfelter Dec., ¶ 8.)

In opposition, Defendant argues it served its complete responses without objections on November 18, 2024. (Declaration of Robert M. Yoakum, ¶ 4.) Defendant’s counsel, Robert M. Yoakum, claims the Defendant’s responses were late because Yoakum had trouble contacting Defendant. (Yoakum Dec., ¶ 2.) Defendant did not understand that Yoakum represented her through her insurance company. (Yoakum Dec., ¶¶ 2-3.) After several emails and phone calls, Defendant returned Yoakum’s phone messages. (Ibid.) Defendant argues Plaintiff’s sanctions request is excessive.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that even though Defendant served responses, the responses contain an objection to request number 5. Defendant waived all objections by failing to comply with four extension deadlines. Plaintiff also asserts that her sanctions request is not excessive.

Plaintiff’s Meet and Confer Attempts

Plaintiff propounded on Defendant her Requests for Production, Set One on June 27, 2024. (Declaration of Ernest J. Lingenfelter, ¶ 3 Exh. 1.) On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel, Ernest Lingenfelter, inquired about responses, and Defendant requested an extension to respond. (Lingenfelter, Esq., ¶ 4, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff granted an extension to respond by September 4, 2024. (Ibid.) Defendant did not serve responses by the September 4th deadline. Plaintiff granted another extension to September 25, 2024. Defendant did not serve responses by September 25th.

On September 26, 2024, Lingenfelter emailed Defendant’s counsel, Robert Yoakum, a meet and confer letter requesting responses no later than October 3, 2024. (Lingenfelter Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. 4.) The letter also stated that Defendant waived any objections due to Defendant’s failure to comply with the previous extension deadlines. (Lingenfelter Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. 4.) Yoakum responded stating a family medical emergency arose and requested another extension. (Ibid.) Plaintiff granted a two-week extension but did not receive responses.

Lingenfelter attempted to meet and confer via email on October 14, 2024 and requested responses without objection by October 18, 2024. (Lingenfelter Dec., ¶ 6, Exh. 6.) Yoakum replied he would follow up with Lingenfelter later, but he never did.

ANALYSIS

A demanding party may move to compel responses to requests for production where the responding party fails to provide any responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (b), 2030.290, subd. (b).) The demanding party must show the requests were properly served, that the time to respond expired, and no response has been served. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-404.)

The responding party must respond separately to each demand by agreeing to comply, stating an inability to comply, or objecting to all or part of the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) The responding party must serve responses within 30 days after the requests for production are served or according to an agreed upon deadline extension. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)

Failing to respond within statutory time limits waives objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The court may relieve the responding party of waiver if the responding party subsequently served substantially compliant responses, and the party’s failure to serve timely responses was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Ibid.; City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1467 [applying the same standards as defaults under section 473, subdivision (b)].)

Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One on November 18, 2024. The Court notes that Defendant did not attach a copy of its responses or a proof of service to its opposition. However, because Plaintiff attached a copy of the responses to her reply and does not dispute that the responses were served on November 18th, the Court deems them served.

Request number 5 states: “All service records for any vehicle involved in the alleged INCIDENT other than a vehicle containing the Plaintiff, since such vehicle was first acquired by Defendant in this action to the date of the alleged INCIDENT.” (Motion to Compel, Exh. 1, at p. 2.)

Defendant’s response reads as follows:

This request is not calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Responding defendant does not contend that there was a malfunction. In addition, after a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry, it has been determined that Responding party is no longer in possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to this demand.

(Plaintiff’s Reply, Exh. 1, at p. 3.)

Although Defendant’s supporting declaration states the delayed responses were due to Defense counsel’s inability difficulty contacting Defendant, Defendant does not argue this occurred due to pleads “mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.” Thus, Defendant has waived all objections to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One.

Additionally, the Court strikes the following statements from Defendant’s response to request number 5: “This request is not calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Responding defendant does not contend that there was a malfunction.” Defendant states this is not an objection, but it is clear the purpose behind these statements is to voice Defendant’s discontent with the category of documents sought and Defendant’s belief that the category is not relevant. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)-(2) [“[Objections must] [i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made; [and] (2) [s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.”].) Defendant provides no legal basis for these statements and the Court strikes them from Defendant’s response.

The Court finds that after striking these two statements, Defendant’s responses satisfy sections 2031.240, 2031.230, and 2031.210.

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to compel responses.

Sanctions

The court must issue sanctions against any party who “unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection . . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (j).) The court may also award monetary sanctions “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Misuses of discovery include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” or failing to meet and confer in person, telephonically, or by letter. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (i).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,310.00 against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request as excessive and challenges the validity of the Lingenfelter Declaration.

The Court notes that Plaintiff granted Defendant several extensions over the past four (4) months. Defendant’s failure to comply with these extensions was a misuse of discovery which led to Plaintiff expending time and resources, including filing this motion, in order to receive the discovery requested. Accordingly, the Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and her counsel.

Plaintiff’s counsel charges an hourly rate of $250.00. (Lingenfelter Dec., ¶ 8.) The request includes the following: (1) 3 hours researching, drafting, and preparing this motion and the moving papers ($750.00); (2) 1 hour to review the opposition and draft a reply ($250.00); (3) 1 hour to appear remotely at the motion hearing ($250.00); and (4) a $60.00 filing fee. (Ibid.)

The hourly rate is reasonable, but the time spent on this motion is unreasonable. This is a basic motion to compel initial responses to requests for production. The Court reduces the hours spent preparing this motion to 2 hours.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request in the reduced amount of $1,060.00: (1) 2 hours preparing this motion; (2) 1 hour reviewing the opposition and drafting the reply; (3) 1 hour to attend motion hearing; and (4) a $60.00 filing fee.

ORDER

1. Plaintiff Deyanira Serafin de Campos’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production, Set One is denied.

2. Defendant Gussie Jenkins and her counsel Robert M. Yoakum are ordered to pay $1,060.00 in sanctions. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel are ordered to pay these sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within twenty (20) days.