Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV42589, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42589    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 17, 2021, plaintiff Juan Carlos Rosas Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Steven R. Espinoza aka Steven Ramirez Espinoza, Law Offices of Steven R. Espinoza, SAE & JGE, LLC, and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence and (2) premises liability.  

On November 4, 2022, Defendant Law Offices of Steven Espinoza, APC (hereinafter “Movant”) filed the instant motion seeking to compel Plaintiff to provide responses without objections to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Movant also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,600.00.

On January 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed his opposition.

As of January 13, 2023, no reply has been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, the party to whom the request for production is made shall serve the original response to the request, unless otherwise agreed to or ordered. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) A party requesting the production of documents may seek an order compelling a response when there has not been a timely response to the request for production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Moreover, where a party fails to timely respond to a production request, the delinquent party waives all objections to production and the requesting party may seek a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

III.        DISCUSSION

A.   Merits

Here, on July 27, 2022, Movant served by mail the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff. (Motion at pg. 4; Arteaga Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Responses were due on August 31, 2022, but no responses were provided by that date. (Motion at pg. 4; Arteaga Decl. ¶ 3.) On October 3, 2022, Movant attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff, requesting responses without objections and seeking to meet and confer further on October 10, 2022. (Motion at pg. 7; Arteaga Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.)

In opposition, Plaintiff first argues that Movant failed to meet and confer in good faith by demanding a response within 7 days. (Opposition at pg. 3.) However, this argument is not persuasive because Movant was under no obligations to meet and confer. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) Next, Plaintiff argues that the instant motion is moot because, as of January 5, 2023, responses were provided and over 800 pages of documents were produced. (Opposition at pg. 4; Valenzuela Decl. ¶¶ 20-21, Exh. 1.)  The Court agrees. Because responses have been served, Movant’s motion has been rendered moot.

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has provided responses to Movant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, the instant motion is denied as moot.

B.   Sanctions

Movant also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,600 due to Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process and there is no excuse or justification for Plaintiff’s failure to produce the pertinent discovery responses. (Motion at pp. 7-8.)

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against the losing party in a motion to compel responses to request for production of documents unless the party subjected to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances render sanctions unjust. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.300(c).) Also, Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) authorizes sanctions for misuse of discovery, which includes: failure to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. (Id. §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (e), (f), (g) & (h).)

In this instance, the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted against Plaintiff. First, because responses have been produced, the instant motion to compel has been rendered moot, and as a result, Plaintiff has not filed an unsuccessful opposition. Second, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Movant’s Request for Production of Documents did not amount to an abuse of discretion. As indicated by Plaintiff’s counsel in his declaration, he did not realize that he received the underlying discovery request, amongst various other discovery requests that were propounded on the same date, and admits fault. (Valenzuela Decl. ¶¶ 6-11.) Also, at the time that Plaintiff’s counsel received Movant’s meet and confer letter, he was preparing for two trials and could not meet and confer. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-14.) Thus, because Plaintiff’s failure to response to the underlying discovery request was due to his counsel’s inadvertence, sanctions would be inappropriate.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Movant’s request for monetary sanctions.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Movant’s motion to compel as moot. Also, the request for sanctions is DENIED.

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 20th day of January 2023