Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV27380, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27380    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On July 19, 2021, plaintiffs Elizabeth Separzadeh and Shiva Bamshad Neman (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), sued as Uber LLC, and Nasim Mikpormotlagh for injuries arising from an August 23, 2019 motor vehicle accident.        

On November 14, 2022, Uber filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).  Uber also requests imposition of sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record.

The motions are unopposed.

As a preliminary matter, Uber’s motions are procedurally improper.  Each motion seeks an order to compel responses from Plaintiff Elizabeth Separzadeh and Plaintiff Shiva Bamshad Neman when separate motions should have been filed as to each plaintiff.  Nonetheless, the Court will reach the merits.

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.    Uber’s Discovery Requests

Counsel for Uber served the at-issue discovery requests on Plaintiffs, September 26, 2022.  Responses were due October 26, 2022.  However, Plaintiffs failed to provide responses.  Uber reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel and agreed to extend the time to respond to discovery.  However, Plaintiff has yet to provide responses.  (Walshok Decls., ¶¶ 3-8.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and request for production are waived.

As Uber properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiffs failed to serve responses, the Court finds Uber is entitled to an order directing Plaintiffs to provide responses to Uber’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Uber requests imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and their counsel of record.  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.)  Plaintiffs’ counsel does not meet their burden.  Accordingly, Uber’s requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record in the amount of $1,060, to be paid within 30 days of being served with proof that the additional filing fees has been paid.

IV.             CONCLUSION

Defendant Uber’s motions are granted.

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Separzadeh and Shiva Bamshad Neman are ordered to provide verified responses to Uber’s 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 Plaintiffs Elizabeth Separzadeh and Shiva Bamshad Neman and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Uber, by and through Uber’s counsel, in the amount of $1,060 within 30 days of the date of notice 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 30th day of March 2023