Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV31244, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31244    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     October 31, 2023                               TRIAL DATE:  March 25, 2024

CASE:                                Maritza Ramirez v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV31244

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant City of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiff Maritza Ramirez

I.          INTRODUCTION

            On April 12, 2023, Defendant City of Los Angeles, filed this motion to compel Plaintiff, Maritza Ramirez, to provide further responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One.  Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel. Plaintiff filed a request to continue the hearing on May 4, 2023, to allow the parties to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).  Defendant filed a reply on May 10, 2023.  The Court granted Plaintiff’s request.

The parties participated in an IDC on August 7, 2023.  Plaintiff represented to the Court that her supplemental responses to the Defendant’s discovery would be produced by August 21, 2023.  Pursuant to oral stipulation, the Court continued the IDC to September 5, 2023.  The Court directed the parties to meet and confer within 5 days after supplemental discovery is produced and to electronically file a Joint Report Re: Status Discovery five court days prior to the September 5, 2023 IDC. 

On August 29, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Report indicating that Plaintiff had served supplemental responses which Defendant still found to be deficient.

On September 5, 2023, the parties participated in another IDC.  The issues were not resolved.  The Court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding discovery responses.  Defendant was directed to file a Notice of Outcome within 5 days following the meet and confer.

On October 13, 2023, Defendant filed a supplemental brief and separate statement.  Defendant explains that Plaintiff served Second Supplemental Responses on September 7, 2023 and Third Supplemental Responses on September 28, 2023.  After reviewing those responses, Defendant has determined the following:

·         Defendant is satisfied with revised responses to and withdraws its motion regarding Interrogatories Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 43, 44, 45, 58, and 60.

·         Interrogatories Nos. 9, 14, 15, 18, 21, 25, 28, 31, 37, 39, 41, 51, 53, 56, and 59 remain deficient.

·         Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 17, 22, 23, 38, 40, 42, 47, 49, 52, 54, 55, 61, 62, 63, and 64 were not supplemented in the Second or Third Supplemental Responses and remain at issue.

            Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.[1] 

            The Court rules as follows.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or where a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, 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).)  The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, 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).)¿¿ 

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).)¿¿¿

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

            Defendant moves for an order compelling a further response to Special Interrogatories Nos. 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, and 64. 

Legal Principles

Section 2030.220(a) requires responses to each interrogatory “to the extent possible” which are “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available” to the responding party.¿ Section 2030.220 (c) states:¿ If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.¿¿ “The responding party must make a reasonable effort to obtain wherever information is sought; and if unable to do so, must specify why the information is unavailable and what efforts the responding party made to obtain it.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782; Weil & Brown, Cal. Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 8:1061.)¿¿ Based on these principles, the Court rules as follows on Defendant’s motion:

No. 9: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 14: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 15: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 17: GRANT. Plaintiff did not provide a complete and straightforward response.

No. 18: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 21: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 22: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections. This request does not unduly intrude upon Plaintiff’s privacy, nor is it burdensome, oppressive, or irrelevant.

No. 23: GRANT.  Plaintiff asserted baseless objections.  This request does not unduly intrude upon Plaintiff’s privacy, nor is it burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, vague, or unintelligible.

No. 25: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 28: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 31: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 37: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 38: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections.  There is no indication from Plaintiff that this interrogatory is duplicative.  Plaintiff’s substantive response is incomplete and not straightforward.

No. 39: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 40: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections.  Plaintiff’s substantive response is incomplete and not straightforward.

No. 41: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 42: GRANT. Plaintiff objected based on attorney work product but did not sufficiently describe how the work product is implicated.  Further, Plaintiff’s “substantive” response is not responsive.

No. 47: GRANT. Plaintiff objected based on attorney work product but did not sufficiently describe how the work product is implicated.  Further, Plaintiff’s “substantive” response is not responsive.

No. 49: GRANT. Plaintiff’s “substantive” response is not responsive.

No. 51: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 52: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections based on overbreadth, burden, irrelevance, and privacy.

No. 53: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 54: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections.  There is no indication from Plaintiff that this interrogatory is duplicative.  Plaintiff’s substantive response is incomplete and not straightforward.

No. 55: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections.  There is no indication from Plaintiff that this interrogatory is duplicative.  Plaintiff’s substantive response is incomplete and not straightforward.

No. 56: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 59: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections and her supplemental responses are evasive and not straightforward.

No. 61: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections based on burden, oppression and attorney work product.

No. 62: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections based on burden and oppression.

No. 63: GRANT. Plaintiff asserted baseless objections based on burden and vagueness.

Monetary Sanctions

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel.  Given that the Court has granted this motion, 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.)¿¿ Plaintiff’s counsel does not meet their burden.¿¿ 

¿

Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $1,285 which represents 5 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $60 in filing fees.¿¿¿ 

IV.       CONCLUSION

            The motion is granted.  Plaintiff Maritza Ramirez is ordered to provide further responses to the at-issue Special Interrogatories. 

            The request for sanctions is granted.  Plaintiff and her counsel are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, sanctions in the sum of $1,285 to Defendant, by and through its 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, unless waived.

Dated:   October 31, 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.