Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV03784, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03784    Hearing Date: May 7, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2021, Plaintiff Armando Mejia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Alexis Alvarez (“Alvarez”), and Does 1-50 for Liability Vehicle Code § 17001 and Negligence.

On March 15, 2021, Alvarez filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants City and Does 1-10 for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and “Veh. Code Sec. 17001.”  On May 5, 2021, the City filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

          On May 5, 2021, the City filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

          On March 29, 2022, the Court granted Alvarez’s motion for a determination that his settlement with Plaintiff was in good faith.

          On April 8, 2024, the City filed motions to compel Alvarez’s responses to the City’s request for production of documents (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and form interrogatories (set one).  The motions were set for hearing on May 7, 2024.  Alvarez did not file oppositions.

The trial is currently set for September 23, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

          The City asks the Court to compel Alvarez’s responses to the City’s request for production of documents (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and form interrogatories (set one).

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

On December 18, 2023, the City served a request for production of documents (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and form interrogatories (set one), on Alvarez.

          Alvarez did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time the City filed these motions.

The Court grants the City’s motion to compel Alvarez’s responses to the request for production of documents and orders Alvarez 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 6, 2024.

The Court grants the City’s motions to compel Alvarez’s responses to the special and form interrogatories and orders Alvarez to provide verified code-compliant responses to the interrogatories without objections by June 6, 2024.

The City requests monetary sanctions.  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 request for production of documents.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Alvarez did not make or oppose a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or a request for production of documents. 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).)  “ ‘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 requests.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendant and Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to compel responses to its request for production of documents (set one) and orders Defendant and Cross-Complainant Alexis Alvarez 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 6, 2024.

The Court GRANTS Defendant and Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to compel responses to its special interrogatories (set one) and orders Defendant and Cross-Complainant Alexis Alvarez to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by June 6, 2024.

The Court GRANTS Defendant and Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to compel responses to its form interrogatories (set one) and orders Defendant and Cross-Complainant Alexis Alvarez to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by June 6, 2024.

 The Court DENIES Defendant and Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles’s requests for monetary sanctions.

Moving party is to give notice of this ruling.