Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV21197, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV21197 Hearing Date: December 14, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff Hannah Banks filed this action against Defendants The Academy of Magical Arts, Inc. (“Academy”), Magic Castle Hotel, LLC (“Hotel”), Magic Castle Park, LLC (“Park”), and Does 1-20 for negligence/premises liability.
On January 6, 2023, Academy filed an answer. On January 9, 2023, Park filed an answer.
On January 12, 2023, Academy and Hotel filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-20 for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On March 30, 2023, the Court dismissed Hotel with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On July 6, 2023, Academy and Park (“Defendants”) filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on September 21, 2023. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. On September 21, 2023, because the moving parties had not scheduled and held an Informal Discovery Conference before the hearing date, the Court took the matter off calendar.
On July 7, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to request for production, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on December 14, 2023. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
On July 10, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses (not further responses) to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on December 14, 2023. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
On November 15, 2023, the parties’ counsel and the Court held an informal discovery conference. On December 8, 2023, counsel and the Court held another informal discovery conference.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 10, 2024.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
A. Informal Discovery Conference
The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.”
The parties attended informal discovery conferences on November 15, 2023 and December 8, 2023.
B. Timeliness of motions
A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the responses, or any supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd, (c).) Failure to file a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to requests for admission.
Defendants filed the motions to compel further responses on July 6, 2023 and July 7, 2023. Plaintiff does contest the timeliness of the motions.
C. Meet and confer
“A motion to compel must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) “A meet and confer declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
Plaintiff does not contest the adequacy of Defendants’ meet and confer efforts.
D. Separate statement
With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.
Defendants filed separate statements for the motions to compel further responses to discovery.
I. Motions to compel further discovery responses
A. Applicable law
1. Inspection demand
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides in part:
“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
“(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
“(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:
“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.
“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.
* * *
“(h) Except as provided in subdivision (j), 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 further response to a demand, 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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 provides:
“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)
2. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in part:
“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.
“(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
“(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
“(b) (1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.
“(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 further 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. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subds. (a), (b), (c), (d).)
3. Discovery sanctions
“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
“Misuses of the discovery process include . . .
* * *
“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)
B. Discussion
1. Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to request for production
Propounded: January 25, 2023
Responses: May 22, 2023
Motion filed: July 7, 2023
Granted: 5, 6, 7
2. Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff's further responses to form interrogatories
Propounded: January 25, 2023
Responses: May 22, 2023
Motion filed: July 6, 2023
This motion was set for hearing on September 21, 2023. On September 21, 2023, because Defendants had not scheduled and held an Informal Discovery Conference before the hearing date, the Court took the matter off calendar.
Defendants have not re-calendared this motion. Not realizing the motion had not been placed back on calendar, the Court told the parties, at the informal discovery conference, that if the parties did not informally resolve these discovery disputes the Court would rule on the motions. However, the Court cannot rule on a motion that has not been placed on calendar because Plaintiff is entitled to receive notice of the hearing. Defendants may place the motion back on calendar for a future hearing.
II. Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories
A. Applicable law
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.)
Propounded: January 25, 2023
Responses: Unknown
Motion filed: July 10, 2023
At the initial informal discovery conference on November 15, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that Plaintiff had not yet served responses to Defendants’ special interrogatories. At the next informal discovery conference, on December 8, 2023, counsel agreed that Plaintiff had served the responses. However, Defendants’ counsel said the responses to the special interrogatories were deficient and Defendants wished to keep the motion to compel on calendar to pursue sanctions.
Defendants ask the Court to grant $585 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time to research and prepare the motion at a rate of $195 per hour. The Court grants sanctions of $390 based on two hours of attorney time. The Court orders Plaintiff and her counsel to pay Defendants $390 in sanctions by January 16, 2024.
CONCLUSION
The motion of Defendants The Academy of Magical Arts, Inc. and Magic Castle Park, LLC to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, was taken off calendar and is not before the Court. Defendants may re-calendar the hearing.
The motion of Defendants The Academy of Magical Arts, Inc. and Magic Castle Park, LLC to compel Plaintiff's responses to special interrogatories, set one, is moot except for the motion's request for sanctions.
The Court GRANTS the request of Defendants The Academy of Magical Arts, Inc. and Magic Castle Park, LLC for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Hannah Banks and her counsel pay Defendants $780 ($390 plus $390) by January 16, 2024.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.