Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV31494, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31494    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:      October 4, 2023                                            TRIAL DATE:  May 6, 2024

CASE:                                Marie Vega v. Brodie Dawson Galland

CASE NO.:                 21STCV31494

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Brodie Dawson Galland

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On March 28, 2023, and August 10, 2023, Defendant, Brodie Dawson Galland, filed this motion to compel Plaintiff, Marie Vega, to provide responses to Demand for Supplemental Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and a motion for an order establishing the truth of each matter specified in Requests for Admission, Set One, against Defendant.  Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and his counsel. 

The motions are unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

If a party to whom 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., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)¿ Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, 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., § 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

Defendant served Plaintiff with the at-issue discovery requests on November 22, 2022 and February 7, 2023.  However, to date, Plaintiff has not provided responses.  (See Grant Decls.)  Therefore, all objections to the inspection demands and requests for admission are waived.  

As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to Demand for Supplemental Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One.¿ In addition, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming admitted Request for Admissions, Set One, against Plaintiff. 

Monetary Sanctions

            Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel.  Given that the Court has granted these motions, sanctions are warranted.  Indeed, in the context of admissions requests, 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.)¿ Plaintiff’s counsel does not meet their burden.  Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $355.17 representing 1 hour at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate, 1 hour at counsel’s paralegal’s rate, and $120 in filing fees.

IV.       CONCLUSION 

The motions are granted. 

Plaintiff Marie Vegas is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses Demand for Supplemental Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One.  Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff.

The request for sanctions is granted.  Plaintiff and her counsel are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, sanctions in the amount of $355.17, to be paid to Defendant, 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 4, 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.