Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV47372, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47372    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On December 10, 2020, Plaintiff Woztbeli Antonio Garcia filed this action against Team Love Transport Corporation (“TLTC”) and Lesky Figueroa Aguiar (“Aguiar”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for motor vehicle negligence arising out of a collision on December 12, 2018.

          On September 9, 2022, the parties engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).  The Court ordered TLTC to serve verified further responses and produce responsive documents to Plaintiff’s discovery request by October 7, 2022. 

On November 7, 2022, the parties engaged in another IDC wherein counsel for Defendants represented to the Court that client communication was delayed due to inclement weather but that the requested documents would be delivered no later than November 14, 2022.  By oral agreement of the parties, the Court set December 14, 2022 as the deadline for filing motions to compel further.

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel Aguiar’s further responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Request for Production and Requests for Admission, and TLTC’s further responses to Requests for Admission.  In the notices of motion, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel.

The motions are unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARDS

A.   Compel Further Responses

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310, and 2033.290, parties may move for a further response to requests for production of documents and requests for admission where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general. 

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (c); 2033.290, subd. (c).)  The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b); 2033.290, subd. (b).)  

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3).) 

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, 2031.310.) 

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 inspection demands or requests for admission, 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., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)¿¿ 

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

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Aguiar’s further responses to Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFA”), Nos. 1-35 and Requests for Production (“RPD”), Set One, Nos. 1-43, and TLTC’s further responses to RFA Nos. 1-35 because each defendant provided meritless objections. 

A motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  A party may discover any non-privileged matter that is “relevant to the subject matter” of the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) 

Here, the Court finds Defendants submitted meritless and non-code compliant objections.  In responding to RFAs, the response must contain one of the following: an admission, a denial, or a statement claiming inability to admit or deny.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).)  In objecting to RPDs, the responding party must identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1).)  Here, Defendants responded with objections only.  Further, as to the RPDs, Aguiar failed to identify which part of the demand the objection was directed.  

Given that the Court ordered Defendants to provide verified further responses, and, to date, Defendants have failed to provide any responses despite representing that such responses would be forthcoming, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendants’ verified further responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs and Aguiar’s verified further responses to Plaintiff’s RPDs.

A.   Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel, Wolfe & Wyman, LLP, for preparing and filing each motion.  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.)¿ Defendants’ counsel does not meet their burden.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.  The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel in the amount of $1,684.95, which represents 5 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $300 and $184.95 in filing fees.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The unopposed motions are granted. 

Defendant Lesky Figueroa Aguiar is ordered to provide further verified responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Request for Admission and Requests for Production and to provide documents in Defendant’s custody, possession, or control that are responsive to the Requests for Production, within ten (10) days of this Order.

Defendant Team Love Transport Corporation is ordered to provide further verified responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Request for Admission within ten (10) days of this order.

Plaintiff’s unopposed request for monetary sanctions is granted. 

Defendants, Team Love Transport Corporation and Lesky Figueroa Aguiar, and their counsel, are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, monetary sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel, in the amount of $1,684.85 within ten (10) days of this Order.

Moving party 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 14th day of April 2023