Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV38569, Date: 2024-12-04 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: December 4, 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 indemnification, apportionment of fault, 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 include Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC as Roe 1 (“Montshire”). On December 15, 2023, Montshire filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On October 7, 2024, Montshire filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (3) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on December 4, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed oppositions.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Montshire asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's case if Plaintiff does not comply in 30 days with the Court's May 8, 2024 order granting Montshire's motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one. Montshire also asks the Court to impose monetary sanctions.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
“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
“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
As noted, on May 8, 2024, the Court (1) granted Montshire’s motion to compel Plaintiff's responses to Montshire's request for production of documents, set one, and ordered 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, (2) granted Montshire’s motion to compel Plaintiff's responses to Montshire's special interrogatories, set one, and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by June 7, 2024, and (3) granted Montshire’s motion to compel Plaintiff's responses to Montshire's form interrogatories, set one, and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by June 7, 2024.
Montshire now contends that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s May 8, 2024 order. Montshire asks the Court to order that if Plaintiff does not comply with the May 8, 2024 order within 30 days, the Court will dismiss the case. Montshire also asks the Court to impose monetary sanctions.
If a party fails to obey a Court order compelling a response to a request for production of documents or compelling answers 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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
The Court orders Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s May 8, 2024 order by January 3, 2025. If Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s May 8, 2024 order by January 3, 2025, the Court will consider dismissing Plaintiff’s case under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), and 2031.300, subdivision (c).
The Court grants Montshire’s request for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Montshire requests $3,690.00 in sanctions on each motion. In declarations included in each motion, Montshire’s counsel states: “As the result of Plaintiff’s failure to provide any responses to written discovery requests, I have had to write letters and make phone calls, in attempts to resolve these issues. I have also been compelled to file multiple motions and have been prevented from meaningfully investigating the incident or effectively defending this action and preparing for trial. In all, I have expended approximately 9 hours in pursuit of this matter, including drafting motions. I expect to spend another 2 hours drafting any reply that might be necessitated and appearing at the hearing of this motion. My hourly billing rate in this matter is $330. In addition, I have paid $360 in filing fees for my prior motion and $360 in filing fees for the instant motion. Therefore, Cross-Defendant requests that Plaintiff and/or her counsel, be ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the sum of $3,690.”
The Court awards Montshire $930.00 in sanctions for all three motions based on three hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour plus three $60.00 filing fees.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC’s motions to compel Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe’s compliance with the Court’s May 8, 2024 order as follows:
The Court orders Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe to comply with the Court’s May 8, 2024 order granting Cross-Defendant Montshire’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, by January 3, 2025. The Court orders Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 3, 2025. If Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe has not complied with the Court’s May 8, 2024 order by January 3, 2025, the Court will consider dismissing Plaintiff’s case.
The Court orders Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe to comply with the Court’s May 8, 2024 order granting Montshire’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, by January 3, 2025. The Court orders Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections to the special interrogatories by January 3, 2025. If Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe has not complied with the Court’s May 8, 2024 order by January 3, 2025, the Court will consider dismissing Plaintiff’s case.
The Court orders Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe to comply with the Court’s May 8, 2024 order granting Montshire’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, by January 3, 2025. The Court orders Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections to the form interrogatories by January 3, 2025. If Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe has not complied with the Court’s May 8, 2024 order by January 3, 2025, the Court will consider dismissing Plaintiff’s case.
The Court GRANTS in part Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC’s requests for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Janice Michelle Supe and her counsel to pay Cross-Defendant Montshire, LLC $930.00. In all other respects, the Court denies the sanctions requests.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of these rulings.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.