Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV16853, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16853    Hearing Date: October 9, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:      October 9, 2023                                            TRIAL DATE:  March 27, 2024

CASE:                                Natalie Harris v. Southern California Edison Company, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV16853

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Southern California Edison Company

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiff Natalie Harris

I.          BACKGROUND

            On May 4, 2021, Plaintiff, Natalie Harris, initiated this action against Defendants, Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) and Gerald Joseph Hatfield (“Hatfield”), for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision between Hatfield and Plaintiff.  Plaintiff alleges Hatfield was driving a vehicle in the course and scope of his employment with SCE.  Plaintiff is currently self-represented.

            On September 12, 2023, SCE filed this motion to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to SCE First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.  SCE seeks sanctions against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed an opposition.  SCE has not filed a reply.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

            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).)¿ Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿¿¿ 

            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.¿ 

            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).)

III.      DISCUSSION

SCE served Plaintiff with the at-issue discovery requests on April 11, 2023.  Responses were due on May 16, 2023.  Plaintiff did not serve responses.  In an attempt to meet and confer, SCE sent a letter to Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery requests.  However, rather than serve responses, Plaintiff sent a letter to SCE claiming the information had already been given to SCE.  To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses.  (See Blanc Decl.) 

Plaintiff admits she did not respond to SCE’s discovery.  Instead, in her opposition, Plaintiff argues each discovery request is either objectionable or does not require a response.  These objections and “explanations” should have been served to SCE as responses to the at-issue discovery requests.  Plaintiff did not timely serve any responses.  Therefore, Plaintiff has waived all objections to the interrogatories and requests for production.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿¿¿Plaintiff does not offer any argument or explanation why she failed to response to SCE’s discovery.

As SCE properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses,  SCE is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide verified, objection-free responses to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Monetary Sanctions

SCE requests sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $800.  Given that the Court has granted the motion to compel, the Court finds sanctions are warranted.  As SCE does not state what the requested sum of $800 consists of, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the reduced sum of $250.

IV.       CONCLUSION 

The motion is granted. 

Plaintiff Natalie Harris is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to SCE’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

The request for sanctions is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay $250 in sanctions to SCE, by and through their counsel.

Discovery responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   October 9, 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.