Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 20STLC02507 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC02507, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 20STLC02507 Hearing Date: July 28, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Nicole Jackson, in propria persona

RESP. PARTY: Defendant, Jorge Hernandez

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(CCP § 1008)

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Jackson’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order Compelling Further Discovery and Issuance of Sanctions is DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) [OK]

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) [OK]

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) [OK]

OPPOSITION: Filed on July 13, 2022 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 25, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nicole Jackson (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Jorge Hernandez (“Defendant”) for general and motor vehicle negligence. The action arises out of an automobile accident that allegedly occurred on March 16, 2018. On April 15, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On July 30, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, initially served by electronic mail on April 20, 2020. No opposition was filed. On February 1, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion and request for sanctions in the amount of $422.50 and ordered Plaintiff to respond to the discovery requests within thirty (30) days.

On December 15, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (“MTC Further”). Defendant alleged that Plaintiff was served with Form Interrogatories, Set One, on September 30, 2021, via mail. (MTC Further, p. 3; Ex. A.) Plaintiff responded on November 3, 2021, with many objections. (Ibid. at 3; Ex. B.) On November 9, 2021, Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff to seek verified responses without objections. (Ibid. at 3, Ex. C.) Plaintiff did not respond, so Defendant filed the MTC Further seeking verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories No. 102.10, 104.1, 106.5, 107.1, 108.1, 112.1, 120.1, and 120.5. (Ibid. p. 2.) Defendant also reminded Plaintiff that on February 1, 2021, the court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Plaintiff was to provide responses without any objections. (MTC Further p. 27, Ex. C.) On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the MTC Further, alleging that after the meet and confer letter and before the filing of the MTC Further, Plaintiff sent Defendant’s counsel an electronic communication on December 8, 2021, informing Counsel that she had served supplemental discovery by mail. (Opposition pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff attached Exhibit A containing a heavily redacted excerpt from email communication with Defendant’s counsel informing Defendant’s counsel that she had mailed supplemental discovery. (Ibid. p. 10, Ex. A.) It appears that the supplemental discovery was not attached to the email communication but was included in the Plaintiff’s Opposition. (Ibid. at 11.) In its Reply to the Opposition, Defendant alleges that it did not receive the supplemental discovery until it was included in the Opposition and even then, the supplemental discovery is “still deficient” and not remedied. (3-1-22 Reply p. 2.) On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Opposition to Defendant’s Reply. Subsequently, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Opposition on March 14, 2022. Finally, on March 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed another Supplemental Opposition and Declaration in response.

On March 29, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and ordered Plaintiff to serve further verified responses without objections within thirty (30) days of notice of the order. It also granted Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $780.40.

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate the Court’s February 1, 2021, Order granting the Defendant’s initial Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One, on the basis that Defendant had failed to properly serve Plaintiff with the form interrogatories. (Mot. to Vacate, pp. 1-2.) No opposition was filed. On May 5, 2022, the Court found that Plaintiff, as an in pro per litigant, had not consented to electronic service, and therefore granted Plaintiff’s Motion and set aside its February 1, 2021 Order. (5-5-22 Minute Order.)

On April 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”) of the Court’s March 29, 2022, Order compelling further discovery and issuing sanctions. On July 13, 2022, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion. No Reply has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make an application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or in part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on an ex parte motion.

…

(e) This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a), (b), (e).)

A motion for reconsideration under § 1008 requires that the moving party present new or different facts that were not previously considered by the Court. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-13.) However, the burden under § 1008 “is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.” (Ibid.; Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833 [finding that § 1008 imposes the special requirement of having to not only show new or different facts, circumstances, or law, but also to “show diligence with a satisfactory explanation for not presenting the new or different information earlier…”].) Reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims that the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling because this is not a "new" or "different" matter. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)

III. Discussion

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s March 29, 2022, Order is timely. Plaintiff filed the Motion fifteen (15) days after Defendant deposited the Court’s order in the mail. (3-29-22 Notice of Ruling; Code of Civ. Proc. 1013(a) (extending deadlines by five calendar days in case of service by mail if the address is within the State of California.))

In her attempt to demonstrate the existence of new or different facts, circumstances, or law, Plaintiff challenges the Court’s ruling on the meet and confer requirement prior to filing a motion to compel further responses. In its ruling on March 29, 2022, the Court noted that, after receiving Plaintiff’s responses to the Form Interrogatories on November 3, 2021, “Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter regarding the deficiencies in her responses on November 9.” (3-29-22 Minute Order, p. 3) The Court found this letter to be sufficient to satisfy the meet and confer requirement.

In the Motion, Plaintiff makes contradictory statements regarding the meet and confer requirement. Plaintiff states that it “engaged in a successful meet and confer with defendant” prior to the Motion being filed on December 15, 2021. (Mot. p. 11, Jackson Decl. ¶ 2.) Subsequently, Plaintiff argues that the “meet and confer attempt occurred after the filing of a motion to compel further” responses. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.) Later, Plaintiff once again states that “Defendant was fully aware that a successful meet and confer had occurred, but and knowingly chose to conceal that fact from the Court.” (Ibid. at ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff also states that she was unable to inform the Court of the following facts: “1) defendant’s actions constitute an abuse of the Discovery Act and must be sanctioned, as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310(c), 2) defendant’s actions are not in accordance with any substantial justification or other circumstances that make the imposition of the sanction unjust per Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.020, and 3) defendant has purposely misled the Court by concealing material facts regarding compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310 meet and confer requirements, in an effort to gain an unfair advantage.” (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff explains that she was unable to articulate these facts during the hearing “due to the Court muting Plaintiff multiple times during the hearing as Plaintiff attempted to offer the court facts and authorities in opposition to the Court’s tentative ruling.” (Ibid. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff restates that the Court granted Defendant’s motion without having “an opportunity to consider Plaintiff’s facts and authorities in opposition, due to Plaintiff’s phone line being muted.” (Ibid. at ¶ 9.)

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the “Court erred when it imposed sanctions on Plaintiff” because “Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to inform the Court that its issuance of sanctions against Plaintiff were based on defendant’s tardy meet and confer efforts.” (Ibid. at ¶ 12.)

In its Opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not brought forth “any new or different facts, laws or circumstances from the hearing.” (Opposition p. 2.) Defendant notes that “Plaintiff claims the order is improper because there was no meet and confer prior to filing the motion, however, plaintiff herself points out there was extensive meet and confers prior to the filing of the motion.” (Ibid. p. 2.) Moreover, Defendant contends that Plaintiff had an opportunity to make these arguments before being muted at the hearing and in the opposition papers she filed. (Ibid. at 2.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff did not submit new facts, circumstances, or law, as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. First, Plaintiff’s argument that she did not have an opportunity to present facts at the hearing is not warranted because Plaintiff had an opportunity to make her arguments in front of the Court and in the numerous filings made in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses. (See 2-28-22 Opposition; 3-8-22 Supplemental Opposition to Defendant’s Reply; 3-25-22 Opposition; 3-25-22 Declaration (Supplemental Opposition) to March 29, 2021 Hearing.)

Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not offered any new or different facts, circumstances, or law sufficient for the Court to grant the Motion. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the meet and confer requirement is contradictory as Plaintiff states that the requirement was both satisfied and not satisfied. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not produce any new facts and only challenges the Court’s findings. (See Gilberd, 32 Cal.App.4th at 1500 (noting that reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims that the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling because this is not a "new" or "different" matter.) Plaintiff’s statements regarding Defendant’s abuse of discovery cannot be considered new facts either because these arguments are incorporated into Plaintiff’s opposition papers.

The Court finds that Plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 and finds no other reason exists to reconsider its March 29, 2022 Order. For this reason, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Jackson’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order Compelling Further Discovery and Issuance of Sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.