Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV28723, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV28723 Hearing Date: September 7, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27
HEARING DATE: September 7, 2023 TRIAL DATE: March 1,
2024
CASE: Joanna Wu v. Paul Geraldo Celaya
CASE NO.: 22STCV28723
MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MOTION
TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
Joanna Wu
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff, Joanna Wu, filed these
motions to compel Defendant, Paul Geraldo
Celaya, to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special
Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Inspection and Production of
Documents, Set One, and to deem the Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted
against Defendant. Plaintiff seeks
sanctions against Defendant and his counsel.
The motions are unopposed.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY
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., §§
2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).)
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
Plaintiff served
Defendant with the at-issue discovery requests on November 30, 2022. Plaintiff unilaterally provided an extension
to provide responses. However, to date, Defendant
has not provided responses. (See Hahn Decls.)
Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and demand for production are
waived.
As Plaintiff
properly served the discovery requests and Defendant failed to serve responses,
the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order directing Defendant to
provide responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s
Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Inspection and
Production of Documents.¿ In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to an order
deeming admitted Request for Admissions, Set One, against Defendant.
Monetary
Sanctions
Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and his
counsel. Given the Court has granted
these motions, sanctions are warranted. Pursuant to Hennings, supra,
imposition of monetary sanctions against counsel is also proper unless counsel
shows that he or she did not counsel the discovery abuse.¿ (Hennings, 58
Cal.App.5th at p. 81.)¿ Defense counsel does not meet their burden. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed
against Defendant and his counsel in the amount of $1,696.60 representing 2
hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate, 2 hours at counsel’s paralegal’s
rate, and $246.60 in filing fees.
IV. CONCLUSION
The motions are granted.
Defendant Paul Geraldo Celaya is ordered to provide verified,
objection-free responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories,
Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents.
Plaintiff’s Request for
Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted against Defendant.
The request for sanctions is granted. Defendant and his counsel are ordered to pay,
jointly and severally, sanctions in the amount of $1,696.60, to be paid to Plaintiff,
by and through her counsel.
Discovery responses are to be provided and sanctions are to
be paid within 30 days of this order.
Moving party to give notice.
Dated: September 7,
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.