Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 20STLC10806 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC10806, Date: 2023-01-05 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: 20STLC10806 Hearing Date: January 5, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2033.280, 2031.300, 94)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, is DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Responses to Request for Production, Set One, is DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s request for sanctions is also 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: None filed as of December 23, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 23, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On December 31, 2020, Plaintiff Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Solarmax”)) filed an action against Defendant Charles Fonarow (“Defendant” or “Fonarow”) for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) open book account, (4) account stated, (5) common count, and (6) unjust enrichment.

On May 12, 2021, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint. Defendant also filed a Cross-Complaint for fraud and breach of contract against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc. (“Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant”). On June 10, 2021, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Fonarow filed the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”). Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed an Answer to the FACC on July 9, 2021.

On May 27, 2022, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to January 30, 2023, along with all corresponding discovery and motion cut-off dates. (5-27-22 Stipulation and Order.)

On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Solarmax filed the instant Motions:

1. Motion to Compel Fonarow to Serve Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, and Request for Monetary, Evidentiary, and Terminating Sanctions (“MTC RFA”);

2. Motion to Compel Fonarow to Serve Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary, Evidentiary, and Terminating Sanctions (“MTC RFP”).

No opposition has been filed to either motion.

II. Legal Standard

A. Requests for Admission

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond. The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c)).

B. Requests for Production of Documents

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents is directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020(a), 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

C. Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct. Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Furthermore, courts are obligated to impose monetary sanctions in cases where a “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Ibid.) Sanctions are calculated based on “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Ibid. § 2023.030(a)).

D. Evidentiary and Terminating Sanctions

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d), (g), 2023.030; R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.040 requires that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Furthermore, the notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.040.)

Monetary sanctions may be imposed “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…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 of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(a).)

Issue sanctions may be imposed “ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(b).)

Evidence sanctions may be imposed “by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(c).)

In more extreme cases, the Court may also impose terminating sanctions by “striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings,” “staying further proceedings,” “dismissing the action, or any part of the action,” or “rending a judgment by default” against the party misusing the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(d).) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure [citations], a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-605.)

III. Discussion

The Court finds that it cannot rule on the instant Motions because Solarmax’s discovery requests have exceeded what is permitted in a limited civil action. In this case, Solarmax propounded 15 Requests for Production and 22 Requests for Admission, totaling 37 requests. (MTC RFA - Gorman Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. C; MTC RFP – Gorman Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. C.) However, Code of Civil Procedure § 94(a) limits discovery in limited jurisdiction actions to “any combination of 35 of the following: interrogatories with no subparts…, demands to produce documents or things…, requests for admission with (no subparts).” Solarmax’s 37 requests exceed what is permitted in this limited civil action and the Court will not choose which requests to eliminate for the discovery requests to come into compliance with the rule of 35.

For this reason, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Solarmax’s Motions are DENIED and therefore, Solarmax’s request for monetary, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions as to each Motion is also DENIED.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party to give notice.