Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV37452, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37452    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On October 8, 2021, plaintiff Esmaralda Y. Fuentes-Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Run D. Wu and Dan Yuedong Wu arising from an apartment fire that occurred around November 2020. 

On March 17, 2023, Defendant Run D. Wu (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Production, Set One.  In the notice of motion, Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff only.

The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A.   Request for Production:  Under Code of Civil Procedure section

2031.310, a propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if an answer to a particular demand is evasive or incomplete or an objection to a demand is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)  A motion to compel further response to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) 

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)  The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  

Finally, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3).) 

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. 

With regard to a motion to compel further responses to requests for production, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310, subdivision (h) provides that sanctions shall be awarded against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

C.   Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”):  Pursuant to Section 9,

subdivision E of the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts for the County of Los Angeles, Central District (“Eighth Amended Hub Order”), Personal Injury (“PI”) Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).  PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.

          After meeting and conferring about available dates for an IDC, the moving/propounding party shall reserve an IDC through [the Court Reservation System (“CRS”)] and provide notice of the reserved IDC to the opposing/responding party by filing and serving an Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts (LASC CIV 239) at least 15 court days before the IDC and attach the CRS reservation receipt as the last page.  The IDC will not be “scheduled” by the court until the IDC Form is filed.  The opposing/responding party may file and serve a responsive IDC Form at least 10 court days before the IDC.  All parties shall briefly set forth their respective positions on the pending discovery issues on the IDC Form. 

III.        DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

A.    Procedural Matters 

Defendant’s motion is timely, and Defendant complied with its IDC obligations.  Further, Defendant has complied with the meet and confer requirement.  (See Rivera Decl.)

B.    Substantive Matters

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Request for Production No. 11.  Specifically, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to produce color photographs of the subject fire.

Request No. 11 states as follows: “All documents which reference, relate or refer to the subject fire, including but not limited to the cause of the fire and damages you sustained as a result of the same.”

Plaintiff responded as follows: “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry on behalf of responding party to comply with this demand, responding party cannot fully comply with this demand because responding party only had in her possession or was only able to obtain a portion of the documentation required to fully comply with the demand.  Such documentation is attached hereto as Exhibit “5”.

Defendant represents that Plaintiff produced black and white photographs.  However, Plaintiff argues good cause exists to compel Plaintiff to produce color photographs because the black and white photographs are unclear. 

          The Court finds good cause exists to compel Plaintiff to produce copies of color photographs responsive to Request No. 11.  Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

C.    Sanctions:  Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.  The

Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $215 representing one hour at defense counsel’s hourly rate.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted.  Plaintiff Esmaralda Y. Fuentes-Perez is to provide color copies of the photographs Plaintiff initially produced in response to Request for Production No. 11, or if none exist, to so indicate in a verified response within twenty (20) days of this Order.

Plaintiff Esmaralda Y. Fuentes-Perez is ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant Run D. Wu, by and through Defendant’s counsel, in the amount of $215 within twenty (20) days 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 19th day of April 2023