Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV17003, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17003    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On May 5, 2020, plaintiffs Karla Enriquez, Aldo Hernandez, Aldy Hernandez, a minor, and Samira Hernandez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Sandra Contreras-Vasquez (“Defendant”) for injuries arising from a May 18, 2018 motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint on June 17, 2021.

On November 17, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.  Defendant also requests imposition of sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record.

On March 23, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration stating that Defendant’s written discovery had “fallen between the cracks” and intended on serving substantive responses to both sets of discovery to all four plaintiffs without objection on Monday 27, 2023.  Defendant replies, arguing that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s representation regarding the properly served discovery is disingenuous. 

As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s motions are procedurally improper.  These motions seek orders to compel responses to two distinct sets of discovery from four plaintiffs.  Defendant should have filed eight separate motions.  Nonetheless, the¿Court will reach the merits. 

II.                LEGAL STANDARDS

A.    Initial Discovery Responses

If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

B.     Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿¿

Sanctions against counsel:  The court in Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 81 (Hennings) noted that discovery sanctions against an attorney are governed by a different standard than sanctions against a party: 

By the terms of the statute, a trial court under section 2023.030(a) may not impose monetary sanctions against a party’s attorney unless the court finds that the attorney “advised” the party to engage in the conduct resulting in sanctions. (§ 2023.030(a); Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.)  “Unlike monetary sanctions against a party, which are based on the party’s misuse of the discovery process, monetary sanctions against the party’s attorney require a finding the ‘attorney advis[ed] that conduct.’ ” (Ibid.) “It is not enough that the attorney’s actions were in some way improper.” (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 200, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247 (Corns).) Because an attorney’s advice to a client is “peculiarly within [his or her] knowledge,” the attorney has the burden of showing that he or she did not counsel discovery abuse. (Ibid.) Accordingly, when a party seeking sanctions against an attorney offers sufficient evidence of a misuse of the discovery process, the burden shifts to the attorney to demonstrate that he or she did not recommend that conduct. (Id. at pp. 200–201, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247; Ghanooni, at p. 262, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.) 

III.             DISCUSSION

A.    Defendant’s Discovery Requests

Defendant served the at-issue discovery requests on Plaintiffs, May 11, 2022.  Responses were due June 14, 2022.  Plaintiffs’ counsel requested four extensions, which Defendant granted.  The last extension expired September 2, 2022.  To date, Plaintiffs have not provided responses to Defendant’s discovery.  (Glazer Decls., ¶¶ 3-6.)  Counsel for Plaintiffs’ declaration confirms that Plaintiffs’ discovery responses are overdue.  (See Vogel Decl.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and demand for production are waived.

As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiffs failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiffs to provide responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.[1] 

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Defendant requests imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record in the amount of $290 for each motion filed for the total sum of $1,160.  Pursuant to Hennings, supra, imposition of monetary sanctions against counsel is proper unless counsel shows that he or she did not counsel the discovery abuse.¿ (Hennings, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 81.)¿ Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that Defendant’s discovery requests was assigned to his bilingual paralegal who obtained partial responses only from Plaintiffs before departing the law firm.  Counsel only recently became aware of the outstanding discovery.  (See Vogel Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.)  Email correspondence attached to Defendant’s counsel’s declaration confirms that the discovery requests were acknowledged by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s paralegal and that the paralegal requested the extensions.  However, Plaintiffs’ counsel was also a recipient of the foregoing email correspondence.  (See Glazer Decl., Ex. C.) 

Based on the foregoing, imposition of sanctions against Plaintiffs would be unjust as it appears the untimeliness of Plaintiffs’ discovery responses is attributable to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s neglect.  Although Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration suggests that he did not counsel discovery abuse, the declaration shows that counsel’s law firm is responsible for the late discovery responses.  Accordingly, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ counsel only.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of $1,160, to be paid within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

IV.             CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motions are granted.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide verified responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and to produce all documents in its possession, custody, or control which are responsive to the Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

The Court orders Plaintiffs’ counsel to pay monetary sanctions of $1,160 to Defendant, by and through Defendant’s counsel, within 30 days of the date of notice of this order. 

Moving parties to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

                                                                                                 Dated this 4th day of April 2023