Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV13591, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV13591 Hearing Date: January 26, 2024 Dept: 28
Having reviewed the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2020, Plaintiffs Annora Renfroe (“Plaintiff”) and Raoul Renfroe filed this action against Defendants Golden Motel, Wang’s Golden Enterprises, Inc., Hui Wang (“Hui Wang”), Joann Doe (“Joann Doe”), and Does 1-20 for battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, private nuisance, and public nuisance.
On August 1, 2023, Defendant Wang’s Golden Enterprises, Inc. dba Golden Motel (“Defendant”) filed an answer.
On November 20, 2023, the Court dismissed Hui Wang and Joann Doe without prejudice.
On December 11, 2023, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories, to be heard on January 26, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Informal Discovery Conference
The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.”
Defendant scheduled an IDC for December 18, 2023. Plaintiff did not appear at the IDC. The Court found that Defendant had complied with its IDC obligation.
B. Timeliness of motion
A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the responses, or any supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd, (c).) Failure to file a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to requests for admission.
On December 11, 2023, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. Plaintiff does not dispute the timeliness of the motions.
C. Meet and confer
“A motion to compel must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) “A meet and confer declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
Defendant has provided meet and confer declarations. Plaintiff does not dispute the adequacy of Defendant’s meet and confer efforts.
D. Separate statement
With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.
Defendant has filed separate statements.
APPLICABLE LAW
A. Motion to compel further responses to requests for production
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides in part:
“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
“(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
“(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:
“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.
“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).)
B. Motion to compel further responses to interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides:
“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.
“(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
“(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
“(b) (1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.
“(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.
“(e) If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.)
DISCUSSION
A. Attorney client privilege and work product doctrine
“In response to a motion to compel answers [citation], the burden is on the party claiming a privilege to establish whatever preliminary facts are essential to the claim. [Citations.] [¶] For example, upon asserting the attorney-client privilege, the client, or the attorney in the client’s absence, must prove that the attorney-client relationship existed when the communication was made. Once this showing is made (typically through declarations), the communications between the lawyer and client are presumed to have been made in confidence. [Citations.] [¶] Upon such showing, the burden shifts to the party seeking discovery to disprove those facts or to prove some applicable statutory exception (e.g., that the privilege has been waived [citation]).” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 8:192, p. 8C-61.)
Plaintiff has not carried his burden of establishing the preliminary facts essential to support his assertions of attorney-client and work product protection.
B. Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to requests for production of documents, set one
Propounded: August 25, 2023
Responses: October 27, 2023
Motion filed: December 11, 2023
The motion is unopposed. The Court grants sanctions of $560.00 based on two hours of attorney time and one filing fee.
C. Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one
Propounded: August 25, 2023
Responses: October 27, 2023
Motion filed: December 11, 2023
D. Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one
Granted: Numbers 1.0, 2.1-2.13, 4.1-4.2, 6.1-6.7, 7.1-7.3, 8.1-8.8, 9.1-9.2, 10.1-10.3, 11.1-11.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1-13.2, 14.1-14.2
E. Defendant’s requests for sanctions on the motion to compel further responses to special and form interrogatories
Defendant requests $2,560.00 in sanctions for the motion to compel further responses to special and form interrogatories based on ten hours of attorney time at a billing rate of $250.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. Defendant’s counsel spent six hours preparing the motion papers and anticipated spending two hours to review any opposition and prepare a reply and two hours to attend the hearing.
The motion is unopposed. The Court grants sanctions of $560.00 based on two hours of attorney time and one filing fee.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wang’s Golden Enterprises, Inc. dba Golden Motel’s motion to compel Plaintiff Annora Renfroe’s further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Annora Renfroe to provide further verified, code-compliant responses to requests for production, set one, numbers 1-38 as set forth above and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested consistent with the Court’s ruling by February 26, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wang’s Golden Enterprises, Inc. dba Golden Motel’s motion to compel Plaintiff Annora Renfroe’s further responses to special interrogatories numbers, set one, numbers 1-19 as set forth above. The Court orders Plaintiff Annora Renfroe to provide further verified code compliant responses to the special interrogatories consistent with the Court’s ruling by February 26, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wang’s Golden Enterprises, Inc. dba Golden Motel’s motion to compel Plaintiff Annora Renfroe’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one, as set forth above. The Court orders Plaintiff Annora Renfroe to provide further verified code compliant responses to the form interrogatories consistent with the Court’s ruling by February 26, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wang’s Golden Enterprises, Inc. dba Golden Motel requests for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Annora Renfroe and her counsel to pay Defendant Wang’s Golden Enterprises, Inc. dba Golden Motel $1,120.00 ($560.00 for each motion granted) by February 26, 2024.
The Court orders Defendant Wang’s Golden Enterprises, Inc. dba Golden Motel to pay the Court one additional $60.00 filing fee.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.