Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV38350, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV38350 Hearing Date: June 4, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 18, 2021, Plaintiff Jose Sanchez Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Shmuel Shaaltiel and Does 1-20 for negligence, negligence per se (Vehicle Code section 22350), negligence per se (Vehicle Code section 22107), and statutory liability.
On July 3, 2024, Defendant Shmuel Shaltiel (erroneously sued and served as Shmuel Shaaltiel) (“Shaltiel”) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Marc Benlolou (“Benlolou”) and Roes 1-10 for implied indemnity and total indemnity, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault.
On August 28, 2024, Benlolou filed an answer to Shaltiel’s cross-complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Shaltiel and Roes 11-20 for implied and equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. On October 4, 2024, Shaltiel filed an answer to Benlolou’s cross-complaint.
On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Marc Benloulou as Doe 1. On December 19, 2024, Benlolou filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
On April 4, 2025, Shaltiel filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (3) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on June 4, 2025. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Shaltiel
asks the Court (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to demand for production of
documents, set one, (2) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special
interrogatories, set one, (3) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and (4) to award sanctions.
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.)
On July 2, 2024, Shaltiel served demand for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Shaltiel filed these motions. Shaltiel asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified, code-compliant, objection-free responses. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
The Court grants Shaltiel’s motions. The Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses to demand for production of documents, set one, without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by June 25, 2025. The Court also orders Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, by June 25, 2025.
Shaltiel asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff. Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand for inspection].)
Plaintiff did not make or oppose a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or a demand for inspection of documents. Therefore, sanctions are not available under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not authorize a sanctions award for Shaltiel’s motions to compel. In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46 (PwC), the Supreme Court observed: “It is already well-established that a court may not rely on [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2023.030 to override the limitations prescribed by any other applicable sanctions provision in the [Civil Discovery] Act. A court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision. And where it invokes that authority, it is constrained by the long-settled rules generally governing the imposition of discovery sanctions under the Act.” (PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.)
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), and 2031.300, subdivision (c), limit the Court’s authority to impose sanctions when (as here) the non-moving party does not oppose a successful motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands. Because Shaltiel has not shown that Plaintiff’s failure to serve discovery responses is “an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision” (see PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75), the Court declines to invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Shmuel Shaltiel’s motion to compel Plaintiff Jose Sanchez Lopez’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Jose Sanchez Lopez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the demand for production of documents without objections by June 25, 2025 and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by June 25, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Shmuel Shaltiel’s motion to compel Plaintiff Jose Sanchez Lopez’s responses to special interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Jose Sanchez Lopez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by June 25, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Shmuel Shaltiel’s motion to compel Plaintiff Jose Sanchez Lopez’s responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Jose Sanchez Lopez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by June 25, 2025.
The Court DENIES Defendant Shmuel Shaltiel’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.