Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV25084, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

This is a legal malpractice action. Plaintiff, Fred Goldstein, a self-represented litigant,[1] alleges that he retained Defendants, Joshua Driskell, Primuth Driskell & Terzian LLP, and Lagerlof LLP, in November 2018 to represent Plaintiff in the underlying probate action filed as 18STPB11264 in the County of Los Angeles.

On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in pro per against Defendants. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) on July 26, 2023. The TAC, which is the operative pleading, alleges causes of action for (1) Legal Malpractice/Negligence, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duties, (3) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

On May 9, 2023, Defendants filed these motions to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to the First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed an opposition. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants.[2]

¿¿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), 2031.310, subd. (h).)¿¿¿¿

Defendants are entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to the at-issue discovery. It is undisputed Defendants properly served the discovery requests on Plaintiff on February 7, 2023. Plaintiff admits he has not served any responses. (See Opp., p. 15:1-3.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has waived all objections to the discovery requests.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the motions should be denied because Defendants did not meet and confer in good faith. However, there is no requirement that a party meet and confer prior to filing a motion seeking initial responses to discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b); see also Sinaiko, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 411 (citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 for the proposition that “meet and confer” requirement “did not apply when propounding party sought order compelling responses to interrogatories and sanctions for responding party's failure to respond ‘within the statutorily permitted time’”).) Plaintiff also cites inapposite Local Rules from the Superior Court for the County of Orange and standing orders from different departments in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, which have nothing to do with motions to compel initial. The discovery requests have been outstanding for over a year.[3] Plaintiff must provide objection-free responses to the request.

Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiff. The court is cognizant that Plaintiff suffers from a medical condition. However, Plaintiff does not show that his condition prevented him from responding to Defendants’ discovery requests for more than a year. Given that the court has granted these motions, and in light of Plaintiff’s medical condition, the court imposes sanctions at a reduced rate against Plaintiff in the sum of $680, consisting of two hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $180 in filing fees.

The motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide objection-free, verified responses to Defendants’ First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the sum of $680 to Defendants, by and through their counsel.

Discovery responses are to be provided, and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of this order.

¿¿¿

¿ Kerry Bensinger¿¿

¿ Judge of the Superior Court¿

[1] While the court is cognizant that Plaintiff is self-represented, the court must still apply the Civil Discovery Rules as the court would with any other litigant. (See, e.g., Nwosu v. Uba¿(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247, [self-represented¿litigants¿are “ ‘treated¿like any other party and [are] entitled to the¿same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.’ [Citation.]”].)

[2] Plaintiff filed a sur-reply, which the Court does not consider in the disposition of this motion.

[3] Plaintiff’s opposition makes reference to being ill. However, there is no indication that Plaintiff is presently ill or that he cannot provide responses due to illness. Indeed, he indicates in his opposition that he has “responded” to the requests but has simply not served those responses. (See Opp., p 15:1-3.)