Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV35974, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35974    Hearing Date: September 11, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:      September 11, 2023                                   TRIAL DATE:  February 2, 2024

CASE:                                Julio Montes Chavez v. Automobile Club of Southern California

CASE NO.:                 21STCV35974

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Automobile Club of Southern California

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On August 15, 2023, Defendant, Automobile Club of Southern California, filed this motion to compel Plaintiff, Julio Montes Chavez, to provide responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two.  Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record.

The motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

If a party to whom interrogatories 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).)  Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, 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).)  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 October 4, 2022.  However, to date, Plaintiff has not provided responses.  (See Jensen Decl, ¶ 7.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories are waived.  

As Defendant properly served the discovery request and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two. 

Monetary Sanctions

            Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel.  Given that the Court has granted this motion, the Court finds sanctions are warranted.  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 his counsel in the amount of $511.65 representing 2 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $61.65 in filing fees.

IV.       CONCLUSION 

The motion to compel is granted. 

Plaintiff Julio Montes Chavez is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two.

The request for sanctions is granted.  Plaintiff and his counsel are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, sanctions in the amount of $511.65, to be paid to Defendant, by and through her 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:   September 11, 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.