Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV17557, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17557    Hearing Date: July 21, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendants Dean R. Mouren-Laurens’s Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Production and Special and Form Interrogatories from Defendant Vast Enterprises, Inc. are GRANTED. Vast Enterprises, Inc. is directed to serve responses to the discovery at issue through counsel.

Sanctions are awarded against Vast Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $1,796.35.

Defendant Dean R. Mouren-Laurens to give notice.

I.                   MOTION TO COMPEL & DEEM ADMITTED

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant Dean R. Mouren-Laurens (Defendant) moves to compel responses to requests for production, and form and special interrogatories from Defendant and Cross-Defendant Vast Enterprises (VE). The discovery was served on January 20, 2023, and before responses were served, this court granted the motion of VE’s counsel to be relieved as counsel for VE. (Harlan Decl. ¶¶ 4–5.) When VE served responses and objections on February 24, 2023, they were signed and sent by VE’s CEO, without verifications, and without indication that VE, a coprorate entity, has obtained counsel. (Harlan Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 4.)

Defendant argues that, although verifications have subsequently been served, there is no indication that VE has obtained counsel. (Motion at pp. 5–8.)

A corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business. (§ 17; Corp.Code, §§ 105, 207.) However, under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.

(CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)

However, contrary to authority stating that filings by a corporation in litigation without an attorney are a “nullity,” courts have recognized that self-represented corporate filings are “curable” and can be rectified by amendment and an opportunity to obtain counsel. (Id. at p. 1144.)

Here, VE’s responses to discovery, prepared and served without benefit of counsel, are improper under the above authority, which prevents corporations from representing themselves in litigation without counsel. It is further improper under statutory authority requiring that “[t]he attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.250, subd. (c); 2031.250, subd. (c).) VE’s responses, signed by no attorney though required to retain one in this action, violate these statutes.

The remedy to is compel VE to serve responses to the discovery through counsel. Although Defendant argues that VE waived all objections because the responses served were “void” and “incurable," the above authority stands for the opposite position, and indicates that VE’s objections may be preserved if it retains counsel to sign its responses, after being given reasonable opportunity to do so. Per the CLD Construction decision, VE should be given a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel and provide code-compliant responses.

Accordingly, the motions to compel are therefore GRANTED.

II.    SANCTIONS

Sanctions are also mandatory against a party whose failure to serve responses to requests for admission makes the motion necessary. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Moreover, a court “may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (CRC Rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Defendant seeks $2,872.60 for the motion addressing VE’s responses to requests for production, and $3,016.10 for the motion addressing interrogatories. (Harlan Decl. ¶ 9.) This amounts to a total sanctions request of $5,888.70, representing 20.1 hours of attorney work at $287 per hour, plus two $60 filing fees. This total includes, however, two hours ($574) sought for meet-and-confer efforts, four hours ($1,148.00) of work preparing replies which were never filed, and a duplicative two-hour charge ($574) to attend hearing on one motion, scheduled for the same date and time as the other. (Harlan Decl. ¶ 9.) Thus the maximum sanctions award for these motions is only $3,592.70.

Sanctions are awarded against VE in the amount of $1,796.35.