Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV25964, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25964    Hearing Date: March 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On July 14, 2021, plaintiff Stephen Silva (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jose Fregoso and Maria Osorio (collectively, “Defendants”) for premises liability.  Plaintiff alleges he was attacked by Defendants’ dog on July 14, 2021.    

On November 2, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).  Defendants also request imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

No oppositions have been filed.

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 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.    Defendants’ Discovery Requests

Defendants’ counsel served the at-issue discovery requests on Plaintiff, July 13, 2022.  Responses were due August 15, 2022.  However, Plaintiff failed to provide responses.  On or about September 28, 2022, Plaintiff requested an extension, which Defendants granted.  Responses were then due October 5, 2022.  To date, Plaintiff has yet to respond.  (Matteis Decls., ¶¶ 3-7.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and request for production are waived.

As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendants Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Defendants request imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record in the amount of $572 for each motion filed for the sum total of $1,716.  Defendants’ requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record[1] in the amount of $1,716, to be paid within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

IV.             CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motions are granted.

Plaintiff Stephen Silva is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One), and to produce all documents in its possession, custody, or control which are responsive to the Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

The Court orders Plaintiff Stephen Silva and plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendants, by and through Defendants’ counsel, in the amount of $1,716 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 20th day of March 2023