Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV01277, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01277    Hearing Date: May 22, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     May 22, 2023                         TRIAL DATE:  January 12, 2024

CASE:                                Beatriz Romo v. Logica, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV01277

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants D&D Wholesale and Marco Balbuena Sebastian

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff, Beatriz Romo, filed this action against Defendants, Logica, Candelario Zamora Ramirez, D&D Wholesale (“D&D”), and Marcos Balbuena Sebastian (“Sebastian”) for injuries arising from a multi-vehicle collision.

On May 31, 2022, D&D and Sebastian (hereinafter, “Defendants”) served Plaintiff with Set One of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.  The deadline for Plaintiff to respond was July 4, 2022.  Thereafter, Plaintiff requested two extensions, which Defendants granted.  However, having received no responses, on January 5, 2023, Defendants filed the motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses.  In the notices of motion, Defendants request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel. 

On January 10, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with Request for Admissions, Set One.  The deadline for Plaintiff to respond was February 17, 2023.  Plaintiff never requested an extension.  Having received no responses, on March 10, 2023, Defendants filed the motion to deem admitted their Requests for Admission against Plaintiff.  In the notice of motion, Defendants request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel. 

The motions are unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS

A.    Compel 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).)  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., §§ 2033.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)   

B.     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

A.    Analysis

Defendants served the at-issue discovery requests on Plaintiff on May 31, 2022, and January 10, 2023.  Plaintiff’s counsel twice requested extensions to respond to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production.  With respect to the Requests for Admission, Plaintiff never requested an extension.  To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ written discovery requests.  (See Marque Decls.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and demand for production are waived.¿ 

As Defendants 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 Set One of Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.¿ In addition, Defendants are entitled to an order deeming admitted Requests for Admission, Set One, against Plaintiff. 

B.     Monetary Sanctions¿ 

Defendants request imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the total amount of $1,938 ($484.50 per motion).  Defendants offer the Declarations of Victoire Marque to substantiate the request.¿

Pursuant to Hennings, supra, imposition of monetary sanctions against counsel is 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, the Court GRANTS monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the total reduced amount of $585 representing five hours at Defense counsel’s hourly rate.

IV.       CONCLUSION 

The motions are granted. 

Plaintiff Beatriz Romo is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Set One of Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents and to produce all documents in his possession, custody, or control which are responsive to the Request for Production within 30 days of this order.  Defendants’ Requests for Admission, Set Two, are deemed admitted against Plaintiff.

The Court imposes $585 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid to Defendants, by and through their counsel, within 30 days of this order.  

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   May 22, 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.