Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV27511, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV27511, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27511 Hearing Date: August 9, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: August 9, 2023 TRIAL DATE: February 21, 2024

CASE: Roberto Vasquez v. Jose Luis Martinez, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV27511

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Roberto Vasquez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Jose Luis Martinez

I. BACKGROUND

On August 24, 2022, Plaintiff, Roberto Vasquez, filed this action against Defendants, Jose Luis Martinez (“Martinez”) and Arrow Sprinkler and Landscape, Inc., for injuries and damages arising from a motor vehicle collision.

On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff served Martinez with Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Productions of Documents, Set One. Responses were due on December 13, 2022. On March 13, 2023, Martinez served responses. Plaintiff took issue with the discovery responses and filed these motions on April 3, 2023, to avoid any timeliness issues. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Martinez and his counsel of record.

The parties scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference for June 14, 2023 in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute. In Martinez’s IDC Statement, filed June 6, 2023, Martinez indicates that he served Plaintiff with supplemental responses to the at-issue discovery on May 23, 2023, and produced an additional 124 pages of responsive documents. However, the parties proceeded to the IDC. The IDC notes reflect that the issues were not resolved.

On June 20, 2023, and June 21, 2023, Martinez filed oppositions to these motions to compel further responses to the Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, arguing they were moot because Martinez had served code-compliant supplemental responses on May 23, 2023. Martinez further argued that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith, or to file a declaration so indicating. Martinez requests sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record.

On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice indicating that the hearing for the motions were rescheduled to August 9, 2023.

On July 27, 2023, Martinez filed an opposition to the motion to compel further responses to the Request for Production of Documents, arguing that the motion was moot because Martinez had served code-compliant supplemental responses on May 23, 2023. Martinez further argued that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith, or to file a declaration so indicating. Martinez again requests sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed any replies.

Because Plaintiff has not filed replies, Martinez’s representation that supplemental responses to the at-issue discovery were served on May 23, 2023 is undisputed. Accordingly, the Court finds that these motions are MOOT.

With respect to sanctions, Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith. A review of the plaintiff’s counsel’s declarations supports Martinez’s position. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that she served an extensive meet and confer letter to resolve the discovery issues. However, there are no other facts in the declaration to show that Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to resolve the discovery issues informally. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel is warranted.¿ The court in Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 81 noted that discovery sanctions against an attorney are governed by a different standard than sanctions against a party. The appellate court stated, in relevant part, ¿

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.)¿

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel does not meet their burden. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $720 which consists of 3 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate.

II. CONCLUSION

The motions to compel are MOOT.

Defendant Jose Luis Martinez’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through his counsel, in the amount of $720 within 30 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: August 9, 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.