Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV27328, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27328    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff Malinda Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Sophia Stone and Rita Tuzon (collectively “Defendants”) for motor vehicle and general negligence arising from an automobile accident on September 8, 2020.  Defendants filed an answer on September 27, 2022.

On September 27, 2022, Defendants propounded upon Plaintiff, Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. One, and Form Interrogatories, Set No. One.  On November 8, 2023, Defendants filed two motions to compel further responses to these discovery requests.  Defendants also seek sanctions in connection with each motion. 

No opposition has been filed to either motion.

This ruling addresses both motions. 

Legal Standard

Compel Further Responses 

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.¿¿ 

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)  The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)¿¿¿¿ 

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).¿ 

Analysis 

Informal Discovery Conference

On October 23, 2023, no appearance was made by or for counsel for Plaintiff, nor communication with the Court as to why there was no appearance.  The IDC was placed off calendar and counsel for Defendant was allowed to proceed with the filing of motions to compel further responses.

Timeliness 

The Court finds that the motions are timely made.  The Court’s minute order of October 23, 2023 permitted Defendants to proceed with filing of motions to compel further responses.  Shortly after, on November 8, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motions.  The Court also finds that moving Defendants have satisfied their obligation to meet and confer.  (Declarations of David M. Hillier (“Hillier Decls.”)).

Plaintiff’s Responses

Defendants request further responses to Demand No. 1 and Form Interrogatory No. 2.8.

Demand No. 1: " Copies of any and all medical/ hospital reports, records notes, diagnostic film including x-rays, CAT scans, MRI and bills pertaining to your injuries as set forth in plaintiff's complaint.”

Response: “Responding Party will produce documents at this time in their custody, control or possession responsive to this respect. Please see attached Medical Records and Billing. Investigation and discovery still continue and the Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response upon obtaining additional information.”

Form Interrogatory No. 2.8:

“Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state:

(a)  the city and state where you where you were convicted;

(b)  the date of the conviction;

(c)  the offense; and

(d)  the court and case number.”

Response: “No.”

On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff’s deposition was taken wherein she identified her treatment with Kaiser for this accident and testified to multiple felony convictions as well as having been incarcerated.  (Hillier Decls. ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff’s attorney then agreed on the record to provide further responses within 30 days and also waived the motion cutoff date.  (Id. at ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff’s responses to Demand No. 1 and Form Interrogatory No. 2.8 are inadequate.  Also, Plaintiff has not provided further responses and production despite Plaintiff’s attorney’s representation that such would be provided.  Accordingly, Defendants’ requests are GRANTED.

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel further responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), 2030.300, subd. (d).)  

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, for both motions, in amounts provided below.  Because the motions are straightforward and will be heard at the same hearing the Court reduced the attorney’s fees requested for both motions.

Sanctions are awarded as follows:

Request for Production of Documents — $497.50 for the filing fee of $60 and two and a half hours spent preparing the motion and for attending the hearing at the hourly rate of $175. 

Form Interrogatories — $497.50 for the filing fee of $60 and two and a half hours spent preparing the motion and for attending the hearing at the hourly rate of $175.  

The total amount of sanctions is $995.00 to be paid by Plaintiff and her counsel of record, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Conclusion

          Defendants Sophia Stone and Rita Tuzon’s motions to compel further responses to Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set One, and Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED.

          Plaintiff Malinda Mitchell is to provide further responses to the requests for which the motions were granted within 20 days of the issuance of this order.

          Plaintiff Malinda Mitchell and her counsel of record, Igor Fradkin, Esq. are to pay $995.00 to Bretoi, Lutz & Stele within 20 days of the issuance of this order.