Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV40755, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV40755 Hearing Date: March 11, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2021, Plaintiff Gregory Horatio Sheran (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Prashanthi Manoharan (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for negligence.
On December 13, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 12, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant to serve verified code compliant responses, without objections, to request for production, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one. Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Defendant.
Defendant asks the Court to deny the motions and sanctions requests.
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
Plaintiff asserts that he served request for production, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, “on or around February 2023.” Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted declarations stating that the request for production, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and meet and confer correspondence with Defendant’s counsel are attached as exhibits to counsel’s declarations. They are not.
On February 5, 2024, Defendant served verified responses to the request for production, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motions are therefore moot and the Court should deny Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions. Plaintiff did not file a reply.
Absent any response from Plaintiff disputing receipt of Defendant’s discovery responses, the Court denies the motions as moot. Because the Court denies the motions, sanctions are not available. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c) [authorizing award of sanctions against party who “unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling” (emphasis added); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c) [authorizing award of sanctions against party who “unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories” (emphasis added].)
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff Gregory Horatio Sheran’s motion to compel Defendant Prashanthi Manoharan’s responses to form interrogatories, set one.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Gregory Horatio Sheran’s requests
for sanctions.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.