Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV14872, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14872    Hearing Date: October 2, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:      October 2, 2023                                            TRIAL DATE:  January 26, 2024

CASE:                                Desiderio Sandoval, et al. v. Maria Guerrero

CASE NO.:                 21STCV14872

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Desiderio Sandoval and Herlinda Sandoval

RESPONDING PARTY:     Defendant Maria Guerrero

I.          BACKGROUND

            Ono April 20, 2021, Plaintiffs, Desiderio Sandoval and Herlinda Sandoval, initiated this action against Defendant, Maria Guerrero, for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision.

            On November 3, 2021, Plaintiffs propounded the first set of discovery on Defendant, including, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions.  On March 8, 2023, after Defendant failed to provide responses, Plaintiffs filed these motions to compel Defendant’s responses to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, and to deem the Requests for Admission admitted against Defendant.  Plaintiffs seek sanctions against Defendant and her counsel of record.

            On September 18, 2023, Defendant filed oppositions, arguing that these motions are moot because Defendant served Plaintiffs with verified responses to the foregoing discovery on September 15, 2023.  Defendant’s discovery responses are attached to the oppositions. Defendant also requests that Plaintiffs’ sanctions request be reduced or denied.

On September 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated reply arguing the motions should be granted in their entirety because Defendant’s responses were served late and do not substantially comply with the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s responses and finds they substantially comply with the Code of Civil Procedure.  Defendant’s responses are verified and did not contain any objections to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.  As such, the motions are moot.  If Plaintiffs take issue with Defendant’s responses, a motion to compel further response is the more appropriate vehicle. 

As it is undisputed Defendant served late responses to the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, the Court considers the issue of sanctions.

II.           LEGAL STANDARD FOR DISCOVERY 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).)  In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, 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

            Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and his counsel.  As it is undisputed Defendant served late responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, the Court finds sanctions are warranted.  Indeed, in the context of motion to deem admitted requests for admission, sanctions are mandatory.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  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.)   Here, defense counsel represents that he substituted into this case on May 16, 2023 and had difficulty contacting Defendant.  Thereafter, defense counsel represents he went out on paternity leave from June 14, 2023 to August 14, 2023 after his wife gave birth prematurely to their son.  The Court finds defense counsel meets his burden to show he did not counsel discovery abuse. 

            Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant only in the amount of $1,050 representing 3 hours at Plaintiffs; counsel’s hourly rate.

IV.       CONCLUSION 

The motions are moot. 

The request for sanctions is granted.  Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,050, to be paid to Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   October 2, 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.