Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV16346, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16346    Hearing Date: November 3, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     November 3, 2023                 TRIAL DATE:  Vacated

CASE:                                Agusto Garcia, et al. v. Nax Lei

CASE NO.:                 21STCV16346

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION

MOTION TO HAVE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Avis Rent a Car System, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

            On October 2, 2023, Defendant Avis Rent a Car System, LLC filed these motions to compel Plaintiffs Agusto Garcia and Adoracion Garcia to provide responses to Defendant’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents, and to deem Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Plaintiffs.  Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel.

            The motions are unopposed.[1]

II.        LEGAL STANDARD TO COMPEL 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).)  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).)  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 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  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

            Defendant served Plaintiffs with these discovery requests on June 15, 2023.  However, to date, Plaintiffs have not provided responses.¿ (See Caponegri Decls.)¿ Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and production demands are waived.¿¿ 

            As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiffs failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiffs to provide responses to Defendant’s First set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents.¿ In addition, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming admitted Request for Admissions, Set One, against Plaintiffs.

             Monetary Sanctions

            Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiffs.  Given that the Court has granted these motions, sanctions are warranted.  Indeed, in the context of requests for admissions, sanctions are mandatory.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  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.)¿ Plaintiffs’ counsel does not meet their burden.   Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs and their counsel in the amount of $1,160, representing 4 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $360 in filing fees.

IV.       CONCLUSION

            The unopposed motions are granted. 

            Plaintiff Agusto Garcia is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents.  Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff Agusto Garcia.

            Plaintiff Adoracion Garcia is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents.  Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff Adoracion Garcia.

            The request for sanctions is granted. 

            Plaintiff Agusto Garcia and his counsel of record are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $580 to Defendant, by and through their counsel.

            Plaintiff Adoracion Garcia and her counsel of record are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $580 to Defendant, by and through their counsel.

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

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   November 3, 2023                                      ___________________________________

                                                                                    Lee S. Arian

                                                                                    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.