Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV11958, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11958    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On April 8, 2022, plaintiff Jose Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jasmine Priscilla Ruiz and Ilario Ruiz (collectively, “Defendants”) arising out of a May 16, 2020 motor vehicle collision.         

On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendants’ responses to Form Interrogatories—General, First Set, Special Interrogatories, First Set, and Demands for Inspection and Copying, First Set.  Plaintiff also request imposition of sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record.

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).)¿¿

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.    Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests

Plaintiff’s counsel served the at-issue discovery requests on Defendants, June 23, 2022.  Plaintiff’s counsel also sent a courtesy copy of the discovery to the claims adjuster for Defendants’ insurance carrier on August 4, 2022 and to Defendants’ counsel on September 13, 2022.  However, Defendants have yet to provide responses.  (Akhavan Decls., ¶¶ 3-5.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and request for production are waived.

As Plaintiff properly served the discovery requests and Defendants failed to serve responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order directing Defendants to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories—General, First Set, Special Interrogatories, First Set, and Demands for Inspection and Copying, First Set.

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests imposition of monetary sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record in the amount of $5,297.50.  Plaintiff request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.  Defense counsel has not met their burden to show that “he or she did not counsel discovery abuse.”  (Hennings, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 81.)  Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record in the reduced amount of $1,545, representing three hours at counsel’s rate of $395 per hour and filing fees, to be paid within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

IV.             CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motions are granted.

Defendants Jasmine Priscilla Ruiz and Ilario Ruiz are ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories—General, First Set One, Special Interrogatories First Set, and to produce all documents in its possession, custody, or control which are responsive to the Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

The Court orders Defendants Jasmine Priscilla Ruiz and Ilario Ruiz, and Defendants’ counsel of record, Christopher Dull, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel, in the amount of $1,545 within 30 days of the date of notice of this order. 

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 22nd day of March 2023