Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV13613, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV13613 Hearing Date: January 9, 2024 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Lee Arian, Department 27
HEARING DATE: January 9, 2024 TRIAL DATE: March 26, 2024
CASE: Maricela Hernandez, et al v. Rosa Paxtor Garcia
CASE NO.: 22STCV13613
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMAND
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Rosa Paxtor Garcia
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 25, 2022, Jose Luis Cortes (“Plaintiff”), Maricela Hernandez and Maria de Jesus Alvarez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Rosa Paxtor Garcia (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, asserting a motor vehicle cause of action.
On November 30, 2023, Defendant filed the instant two motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to her Interrogatories, Set One and Inspection Demand, Set One, served on Defendant on ___. Defendant seeks an order for Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,061.65 for the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with bringing this motion,
As of January 3, 2024, no oppositions to the motions have been filed.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides that “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the . . . party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories.” “The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a), (b).) The responding party must serve responses to interrogatories within thirty days of service. (CCP § 2030.260 (a).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides that “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the . . . party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand.” “The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a), (b).) The responding party must serve responses to a demand for documents within thirty days of service. (CCP § 2031.260 (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).) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1348, subd. (a).)
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant served Plaintiff with the aforementioned discovery requests on August 26, 2022. (Coyle Decl., ¶b, see Exhs. A.) The Court has reviewed the requests and interrogatories attached to the motions and finds they seek relevant information.
Plaintiff’s responses to those requests were due on September 26, 2022. No responses to the requests were received. (Coyle Decl., ¶b.) On June 5, 2023, defense counsel emailed a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff and requested responses to discovery requests by June 15, 2023. (Id., ¶c, see Exhs. B.) Defense counsel declares that no responses were received. (Coyle Decl., ¶d.) Since Plaintiff failed to respond to properly served discovery requests within thirty days of service and did not file an opposition to the instant motions, all objections to the interrogatories and inspection demand are waived. The Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories, Set One and Inspection Demand, Set One.
Monetary Sanctions
Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff. When sanctions are requested against a party that does not respond to or oppose a discovery motion, the court has the discretion to grant or deny sanctions. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1348, subd. (a).)
Here, Defendant seeks sanctions of $1,061.65, consisting of one hour to prepare this motion, and three hours anticipated to be spent on reviewing opposing papers, preparing a reply and attending the hearing. Counsel’s hourly rate is $250 per hour. (Coyle Decl., ¶f.) The request also accounts for a $61.65 filing fee.
The Court finds the requested sanctions excessive because Plaintiff did not file any opposition, and Defendant did not reply. Therefore, the Court will deduct two hours of attorney time (equaling $500) from the requested sanctions and impose sanctions of $561.65 against Plaintiff.
IV. CONCLUSION
The unopposed motions are granted. Plaintiff, Jose Luis Cortes is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories, Set One and Inspection Demand, Set One.
The request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $561.65 to Defendant.
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.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Rosa Paxtor Garcia
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. BACKGROUND
On April 25, 2022, plaintiffs Jose Luis Cortes, Maricela Hernandez and Maria de Jesus Alvarez filed this action against Rosa Paxtor Garcia (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, asserting a motor vehicle cause of action.
On November 21, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion against plaintiffs Maricela Hernandez and Maria de Jesus Alvarez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs’ causes of action as terminating sanctions for failure to cooperate in the discovery process. On August 30, 2023, the court granted Defendant’s motion to compel answers to Defendant’s form interrogatories and request for production of documents. (Coyle Decl., ¶3, Exh. A.) Plaintiffs were ordered to serve verified, objection-free responses to the interrogatories and inspection demand within thirty days. Notice of that ruling was served on Plaintiffs on October 20, 2023. (Coyle Decl., ¶3.) As of the date of this motion, Plaintiffs did not provide any responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Coyle Decl., ¶4.)
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions. Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620. Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court’s orders. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796.
The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the detriment to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery. Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246. If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted. Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516. However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.” Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787. Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers. Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118. Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply. Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611. The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful. Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.
A terminating sanction is a “drastic measure which should be employed with caution.” Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793. “A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280. While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793. “[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations.” (Ibid.)
III. DISCUSSION
As the Court stated in Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at pp. 795-796, “[t]erminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court’s orders.” Terminating sanctions are appropriate here for that very reason. Plaintiffs did not provide Defendant with discovery responses, disobeyed a Court Order compelling them to provide discovery responses, and have failed to file an opposition to this motion. The Court finds Plaintiffs knew of their discovery obligations and knew of the Court Order compelling their compliance. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to provide initial discovery responses was willful, as was their disobedience to the Court’s Order. Given Plaintiffs’ apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Maricela Hernandez and Maria de Jesus Alvarez’s Complaint against Defendant Rosa Paxtor Garcia is dismissed with prejudice.
Moving party to give notice.
Dated: January 9, 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.