Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV46032, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV46032 Hearing Date: July 2, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2020, Plaintiffs Jazmin Torres Novoa and Ashley Gregorio, by her guardian ad litem Jazmin Torres Novoa, filed an action against Defendants Franklin Winbom and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and exemplary damages. (Case number 20STCV46032.)
On August 19, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to correct Defendant’s name to Franklin Windom (“Windom”).
On November 15, 2022, the Court appointed Jazmine Torres Novoa to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Ashley Gregorio.
On January 17, 2023, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On April 24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal.
On November 9, 2023, Windom filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Jasmine Novoa Torres and Roes 11-20 for indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief. On January 25, 2024, Cross-Defendant Jasmine Novoa Torres filed an answer to Windom’s cross-complaint.
B. Case number 22STCV22649
On July 13, 2022, Plaintiff Delila Rangel, by and through her guardian ad litem George Rangel (“Rangel”), filed an action against Defendants Windom, D & W Trucking, Inc. (“D&W”), Jasmine Novoa Torres, and Does 1-50 for negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring/retention/training/supervision. (Case number 22STCV22649.)
On September 21, 2022, Defendant Jasmine Novoa Torres filed an answer.
On October 7, 2022, D&W filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Jasmine Novoa Torres and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On December 22, 2022, Defendant Jasmine Novoa Torres filed an answer to D&W’s cross-complaint and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants D&W, Windom, and Roes 1-10 for comparative indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On November 9, 2023, Windom filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants D&W, Jasmine Novoa Torres, and Roes 11-20 for indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief.
On February 5, 2024, Windom filed an answer to Rangel’s complaint.
C. The Court relates and consolidates the cases
On May 30, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 20STCV46032 and 22STCV22649 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 20STCV46032 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On October 10, 2023, the Court consolidated the cases for all purposes based on the parties’ stipulation. Case number 20STCV46032 remained the lead case.
Trial is currently scheduled for December 19, 2024.
D. These motions
On May 21, 2024, Windom filed (1) a motion to compel Rangel’s responses to request for production of documents and things, set one, and for sanctions, and (2) a motion to compel Rangel’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on July 2, 2024. Rangel did not file oppositions.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Windom asks the Court (1) to compel Rangel’s responses to request for production of documents and things, set one, (2) to compel Rangel’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and (3) to impose sanctions on Rangel.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
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 2030.290 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
A. Motions to compel discovery responses
On January 8, 2024, Windom served request for production of documents and things, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Rangel. Rangel did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Windom filed these motions.
The Court grants Windom’s motion to compel Rangel’s responses to request for production of documents and things, set one, and orders Rangel to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by August 1, 2024.
The Court grants Windom’s motion to compel Rangel’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Rangel to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by August 1, 2024.
B. Sanctions requests
Windom requests sanctions on his motions to compel Rangel’s responses to Windom’s request for production of documents and things and form interrogatories. 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 requests for production. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand for inspection].) Here, Rangel did not make or oppose a motion to compel responses. 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.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 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).) Because rule 3.1348(a) authorizes sanctions “under the Discovery Act,” the Court may not award sanctions under rule 3.1348(a) except as the Discovery Act authorizes. As explained above, the Discovery Act does not authorize sanctions for Windom’s unopposed motions to compel responses to requests for production of documents and things and form interrogatories.
The Court denies Windom’s sanctions requests.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Franklin Windom’s motion to compel the responses of Plaintiff Delila Rangel, by and through her guardian ad litem George Rangel, to Defendant Franklin Windom’s request for production of documents and things, set one, and orders Plaintiff Delila Rangel, by and through her guardian ad litem George Rangel, to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by August 1, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Franklin Windom’s motion to compel the responses of Plaintiff Delila Rangel, by and through her guardian ad litem George Rangel, to Defendant Franklin Windom’s form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Delila Rangel, by and through her guardian ad litem George Rangel, to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections to the form interrogatories by August 1, 2024.
The Court DENIES Defendant Franklin Windom’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.