Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV38569, Date: 2024-05-08 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: 20STCV38569    Hearing Date: May 8, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.

On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against the City, the County, and Does 1-50 for premises liability.

On June 10, 2022, the City filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-10 for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief.

On August 10, 2022, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.

On June 27, 2023, the City amended its cross-complaint to add Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC (“Montshire”) as Roe 1.  On December 15, 2023, Montshire filed an answer.

On April 10, 2024, Montshire filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, to be heard on May 8, 2024.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

The trial is currently set for November 13, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

          Montshire asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one.  Montshire also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

A.   Inspection demand

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, subdivision (a), provides:

“Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a), emphasis added.)

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.)

B.   Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010, subdivision (a), provides:

“Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.101, subd. (a), emphasis added.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides:

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

“(a) 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, 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 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.

“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.

“(c) 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 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, 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., § 2030.290.)  

DISCUSSION

          On January 30, 2024, Montshire served requests for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Montshire filed this motion.

          As an initial matter, Montshire, a cross-defendant in the City’s cross-complaint, is seeking discovery responses from the plaintiff in the original complaint.  Montshire and Plaintiff have asserted no claims against each other.  May Montshire seek discovery responses from Plaintiff? 

          “Whether ‘any other party to the action’ [Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.101, subd. (a), 2031.010, subd. (a)] allows parties to a cross-complaint to serve [interrogatories and inspection demands on] others who are parties to the main action only is unclear.”  (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) (Cal. Practice Guide) ¶ 8:920, p. 8F-6 [interrogatories]; id., ¶ 8:1425, p. 8H-3 [“It is unclear whether a cross-complaint is the same ‘action’ as the complaint, so as to permit a third party cross-defendant to serve [inspection demands under Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010 et seq.] on plaintiff”].)

         “For pleading purposes, a cross-complaint is regarded as a separate pleading, not the same ‘action’ as the complaint [citation].”  (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:921, p. 8F-6.)  “However, for discovery purposes, parties to the complaint and cross-complaint should be treated as parties to the same ‘action,’ so as to permit service of interrogatories [and inspection demands] between [plaintiff and third-party cross-defendant].  Otherwise, to obtain discovery from each other, depositions would be required.”  (Id., ¶ 8:922, p. 8F-6; see id., ¶ 8:1425, p. 8H-3.)  Therefore, the Court concludes that Montshire may seek Plaintiff’s discovery responses.

          Because Plaintiff did not respond to Montshire’s discovery requests, the Court grants Montshire’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the request for production of documents and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by June 7, 2024.  In addition, the Court grants Montshire’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the special and form interrogatories and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the interrogatories without objections by June 7, 2024.

Montshire requests monetary sanctions totaling $3,135.00.  Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, sanctions are available against parties, persons, and attorneys who unsuccessfully make or oppose a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand for inspection].)  Plaintiff did not make or oppose a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or a demand for inspection. Therefore, sanctions are not available under these statutes.

Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for these motions.  (See Code Civ. Proc, § 2023.010.)  Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 is “ ‘definitional’ and monetary sanctions may not be imposed based solely on [the statute].  Monetary sanctions may be imposed only if authorized by some other provision of the Discovery Act.”  (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:1900, p. 8M-2; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 [court may impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or other provision of this title”]; City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 498-504, review granted Jan. 23, 2023 with order permitting citation of opinion for its persuasive value and to establish the existence of a conflict in authority that would “allow trial courts to exercise discretion . . . to choose between sides of any such conflict.”) 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), provides: “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 . . . .”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1348(a).)  “ ‘Rules of court have the force of law and are as binding as procedural statutes as long as they are not inconsistent with statutory or constitutional law.’ ” (Fidelity National Home Warranty Company Cases (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 812, 842, fn. 41, quoting In re I.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 249, 256.)  Interpreting rule 3.1348(a) to authorize an award of sanctions here would be inconsistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. 

The Court denies the sanctions request.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC’s motion to compel responses to its request for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by June 7, 2024.

The Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC’s motion to compel responses to its special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by June 7, 2024.

The Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC’s motion to compel responses to its form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by June 7, 2024.

The Court DENIES Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC’s request for sanctions.

Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC should have filed three separate motions, one for each type of discovery at issue.  The Court therefore orders Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC to pay the Court $120.00, representing two additional filing fees, by June 7, 2024.

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.