Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV27425, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV27425 Hearing Date: January 26, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff Derrell Hochstein filed this action against Defendants Marirose Flores, Jonathan Aguilar, and Does 1-100 for negligence and negligence per se.
On July 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Derrell Hochstein (“Derrell Hochstein”) and Rachel Hochstein (“Rachel Hochstein”) filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Marirose Flores ("Flores"), Jonathan Aguilar, and Does 1-100 for negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium.
On February 8, 2023, Defendant Jonathan Morgan Aguilar, erroneously sued and served as Jonathan Aguilar (“Aguilar”), filed an answer. On March 7, 2023, Flores filed an answer.
On October 13, 2023, Aguilar filed motions (1) to compel Derrell Hochstein’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions and (2) to compel Rachel Hochstein’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on January 26, 2024. Derrell Hochstein and Rachel Hochstein have not filed oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 4, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Aguilar requests that the Court order Derrell Hochstein and Rachel Hochstein to provide verified code-compliant responses to the demands for production of documents and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections. Aguilar also requests that the Court impose sanctions.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides:
“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:
“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.
“(c) Except as provided in subdivision (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 response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, 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 this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
“(d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.
“(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)
DISCUSSION
On February 20, 2023, Aguilar served demands for production of documents, set one, on Derrell Hochstein and Rachel Hochstein.
Responses were due March 24, 2023. Derrell Hochstein and Rachel Hochstein did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Aguilar filed these motions.
The Court grants the motions and orders Derrell Hochstein and Rachel Hochstein to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by February 26, 2024.
The Court denies Aguilar’s requests for sanctions. Sanctions for these motions are available only when a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Jonathan Morgan Aguilar’s motion to compel Plaintiff Derrell Hochstein’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Derrell Hochstein to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by February 26, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Jonathan Morgan Aguilar’s motion to compel Plaintiff Rachel Hochstein’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Rachel Hochstein to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by February 26, 2024.
The Court DENIES Defendant Jonathan Morgan Aguilar’s requests for sanctions.
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.