Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV25123, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25123    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On July 8, 2021, Plaintiff Tiffany Cooley (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Rok Drinks, LLC, Donald Henry, and Does 1- 50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to replace the incorrect name Rok Drinks, LLC with the Defendant’s true name, Rokit Drinks. 

On May 10, 2023, Defendant Rokit Drinks LLC, formerly known as Rok Drink LLC (“Defendant”), filed an answer. 

On November 16, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to demand for production of documents, set two, and for monetary sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on December 14, 2023. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

No trial date is currently scheduled. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS 

Defendant requests that the Court order Plaintiff to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections, to the demand for production of documents, set two, and produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested.  Defendant also requests 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.       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, but are not limited to, the following: 

* * * 

“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) 

DISCUSSION 

On August 14, 2023, Defendant served request for production of documents, set two, on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Defendant filed this motion. 

The Court grants the motion and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 16, 2024. 

Defendant requests monetary sanctions of $790.  Counsel states: “My staff and I have spent three (3) hours preparing this motion and I expect to spend at least three (3) hours traveling to and attending the hearing on this motion. I have been a civil attorney for several years and believe the reasonable value of my services to be $175.00 per hour.”  The Court awards sanctions of $350 based on two hours of attorney’s work. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Rokit Drinks LLC, formerly known as Rok Drink LLC, to compel Plaintiff Tiffany Cooley’s responses to the request for production of documents, set two.  The Court orders Plaintiff Tiffany Cooley to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections, to the request for production of documents and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested by January 16, 2024. 

The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions of Defendant Rokit Drinks LLC, formerly known as Rok Drink LLC, and orders Plaintiff Tiffany Cooley and her counsel to pay $350 in sanctions to Defendant by January 14, 2024. 

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.