Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV46953, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46953    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On December 27, 2021, plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Andrea Marie Bryant (“Defendant”), arising out of a January 3, 2021 motor vehicle collision. 

On February 17, 2023,  Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, and (3) Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.  

No oppositions have been filed.

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).)¿¿

III.             DISCUSSION

Defendant’s counsel declares the at-issue discovery requests were served on Plaintiff, April 5, 2022.   The proof of service (POS) for the foregoing documents are confusing.  Some indicate proof of service was by email; others indicate proof of service was by “placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows,” but directly below the POS indicates service was by email and physical copies would be provided “upon request only.”    

Further, the Court notes the “lukelawfirmntsa@outlook.com” email address does not match the “lawofficevwluke@gmail.com” email address on file with the Court.   Defendant’s counsel declares that Plaintiff was granted extensions to respond to Defendant’s discovery.  (Doi Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)  Yet, Defendant’s counsel does not attach copies of email correspondence with Plaintiff’s counsel or otherwise provide the Court with confirmation that Plaintiff received the at-issue discovery or notice of the instant motions at “lukelawfirmntsa@outlook.com”.  

The POS can be affected by mail or by email; however, if by email, counsel should provide confirmation of opposing counsel’s email address.

Based on the foregoing, it is unclear whether Plaintiff was served with Defendant’s discovery requests or the instant motions, or that the actual attorney handling the case at “lawofficevwluke@gmail.com” or “lukelawfirmntsa@outlook.com” was served.

IV.             CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions are CONTINUED to March 30, 2023 at 1:30 PM in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  Defendant to file additional evidence to confirm proof of service of the discovery requests and the instant motions on Plaintiff’s attorney of record no later than 5 court days before the hearing.

Moving parties 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 16th day of March 2023