Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV05291, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05291    Hearing Date: October 9, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     October 9, 2023                                 TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Emilia Meza Alvarez, et al. v. Steven Kazuo Kurashima, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV05291

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Emilia Meza Alvarez

RESPONDING PARTY:     Defendant Steven Kazuo Kurashima

I.          INTRODUCTION

On February 10, 2021, Plaintiffs, Emilia Meza Alvarez and Mayra Medina, individually and as successors in interest to Jose Fernando Jimenez (“Jose”), initiated this survival action against Defendants, Steven Kazuo Kurashima (“Steven”) and Diana Kurashima (“Diana”).  Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 5, 2022.  In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege Steven was operating a vehicle owned by Diana at an unsafe speed when he collided with Jose as he was crossing the street.

On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff, Emilia Meza Alvarez, filed these motions to compel Defendant, Steven Kazuo Kurashima’s, further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents.  Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant and his counsel.  Defendant filed oppositions and Plaintiff filed replies.

The parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) on September 26, 2023.  Following the IDC, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Outcome Re: Meet & Confer Post IDC.  The Notice of Outcome indicates that the dispute remains unresolved as to the following discovery requests: Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 20.8, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 14, 16, 19-24, 42, 46, 47, and Demand for Production, Set One, No. 36.

The Court rules as follows.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES¿TO DISCOVERY

¿ 

            Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories and requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.  A motion to compel further response to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)  

            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., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c).)  The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

            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).) 

            Monetary 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.    

            Sanctions shall be awarded against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

            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.  Procedural Requirements 

Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the interrogatory or demand for inspection.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.290, subd. (c).)¿ The deadline is extended by two days per Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3) when the responses or verifications are served electronically.  (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136-37.)  Here, Defendant served responses by email on May 26, 2023.  Plaintiff then filed these motions on July 12, 2023, which is 45 days and 2 court days after Defendant served responses.  Accordingly, the motions are timely. 

Additionally, as is required by the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts for the County of Los Angeles, Central District, Plaintiff has satisfied the IDC requirement prior to the hearing for the motions. (See 9/26/23 Minute Order.)   

In sum, the procedural requirements have been met. 

B.  Analysis 

As the Notice of Outcome indicates, the remaining discovery disputes concern Form Interrogatory No. 20.8, Special Interrogatory Nos. 14, 16, 19-24, 42, 46, 47, and Demand for Production No. 36.

            1. Form Interrogatories

Form Interrogatory No. 20.8: Plaintiff seeks a further response to No. 20.8.  However, neither No. 20.8 nor Defendant’s response to No. 20.8, appear in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement.  As such, the Court cannot assess whether a further response is warranted. 

Accordingly, the motion as to Form Interrogatory No. 20.8 is denied.

            2.  Special Interrogatories  

Section 2030.220(a) requires responses to each interrogatory “to the extent possible” which are “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available” to the responding party.¿

Special Interrogatory No. 14:  This interrogatory asks whether Defendant suffered from any eye diseases or vision problems at the time of the incident.  Defendant responded, “I wear contact lenses.”  This is not a complete or straightforward response.  The discovery request, while compound, is sufficiently clear.  A further response is warranted.

Special Interrogatory No. 16:  This interrogatory asks if Defendant required vision correction as a result of his visit to the eye doctor before the incident.  Defendant interposed objections based upon relevance and privacy.  The Court finds this interrogatory is relevant and Defendant’s privacy concerns do not overcome the need for the discovery.  A further response is warranted.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 19-24:  These interrogatories seek information about Defendant’s driving history.  Defendant interposed objections based on lack of relevancy and the inadmissibility of prior incidents.  The Court finds these interrogatories are relevant.  Further, even if these interrogatories call for disclosure of prior incidents, “admissibility is not a prerequisite to discovery.”  (Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1491.)  A further response is warranted.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 42 and 46:  No. 42 seeks a description of the condition of the tires of the vehicle involved in the incident, including the tread life of the tires on the day of the incident.  No. 46 seeks a description of the mechanical condition of the vehicle.  Defendant simply responded, “Good” to both interrogatories. This is not a complete response.  Nor may a party provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.”  (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)  A further response is warranted.

Special Interrogatory No. 46: Plaintiff seeks a further response to No. 46.  However, neither No. 46, nor Defendant’s response to No. 46, appear in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement.  As such, the Court cannot assess whether a further response is warranted. 

In sum, the motion as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 14, 16, 19-24, 42, and 46 is granted.  The motion as to Special Interrogatory No. 47 is denied.

            3. Demands for Production

Demand for Production No. 46: This request seeks “all documents identifying any mental, physical, or emotional disabilities [Defendant] had immediately before the incident that may have contributed to the occurrence of the incident.”  Defendant interposed objections based on lack of relevancy and invasion of privacy.  Defendant’s privacy concerns do not overcome the need for the discovery.

Accordingly, the motion as to Demand for Production No. 46 is granted.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and his counsel.  As Defendant opposed these motions without substantial justification, sanctions are warranted.  Pursuant to Hennings, supra, imposition of monetary sanctions against counsel is also proper unless counsel shows that he or she did not counsel the discovery abuse.¿ (Hennings, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 81.)¿¿ Defense counsel does not meet their burden.¿ 

Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant and his counsel in the amount of $1,923.15 which represents 4 hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $123.15 in filing fees.¿  

IV.       CONCLUSION

            The motions are granted except as to Form Interrogatory No. 20.8 and Special Interrogatory No. 47.  Defendant Steven Kazuo Kurashima is ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests as indicated herein.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted.  Defendant and his counsel of record are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, sanctions in the amount of $1,923.15 to Plaintiff, by and through her counsel.

            Further discovery responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   October 6, 2023                                 ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            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.