Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV24142, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV24142 Hearing Date: January 11, 2024 Dept: 28
Having reviewed the moving papers and status report, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 30, 2021, Plaintiff Claire Sabin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Stephen Zino (“Zino”), Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), and Does 1-50 for negligence.
On January 12, 2023, Lyft filed an answer.
On June 23, 2023, the clerk entered Zino’s default.
On August 29, 2023, Lyft filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions. The hearing was set for November 8, 2023 and later re-set for January 11, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
On January 2, 2024, Lyft filed a report on the status of discovery responses.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 1, 2024.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
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 participated in an IDC on December 1, 2023.
B. Timeliness of motion
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.
Lyft filed the motion on August 29, 2023. Plaintiff does not dispute the motion’s timeliness.
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.)
Lyft has provided a meet and confer declaration.
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.
Lyft has filed a separate statement.
APPLICABLE LAW
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.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).)
DISCUSSION
Motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions
Propounded: May 23, 2023
Responses: July
11, 2023
Further
responses: December 26, 2023
Motion filed: August 29, 2023
Lyft states that “Plaintiff served verified responses to Defendant’s Request for Production, Set One on December 26, 2023; however, these responses are not Code-compliant. Despite several meet and confer efforts and an Informal Discovery Conference, these responses still include improper objections and incomplete responses to Request for Production Nos. 2-5, 8-15, 17, 19-22, 24-25, 28-34, 37-43, 45-46, and 48-55.” (Status report p. 2.)
Denied: 41, 52-54 (not listed in separate statement)
Lyft asks the Court to grant $2,532.50. in sanctions based on 11.5 hours of attorney time billed at $215 per hour and one $60 filing fee. However, Lyft has not identified a statute that authorizes a sanctions award here.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), provides that “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, subd. (h).) Plaintiff did not make or oppose a motion to compel further responses to the requests for production of documents.
Lyft also relies on the statutory definition of misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2023.010.) However, “[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”].)
Because Lyft has not identified a statutory basis for sanctions, the Court denies the request for monetary sanctions.
CONCLUSION
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.