Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV43901, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV43901 Hearing Date: March 5, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff Cedric Taite (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Omar Penaloza (“Penaloza”), J.J. Associates Inc., and Does 1-10 for negligence.
On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant J.J Kane Associates, Inc. (“Kane”) as Doe 1.
On March 6, 2023, the Court dismissed Defendant J.J Associates, Inc. without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On April 19, 2023, Penaloza and Kane filed answers.
On February 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Penaloza’s responses to supplemental request for production of documents. The motion was set for hearing on March 5, 2025. Penaloza has not filed an opposition.
Trial is scheduled for March 25, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff
asks the Court to compel Penaloza to respond to supplemental request for production
of documents and to impose sanctions on Penaloza.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.050 provides:
“(a) In addition to the demands for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling permitted by this chapter, a party may propound a supplemental demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.
“(b) A party may propound a supplemental demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and, subject to the time limits on discovery proceedings and motions provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010), once after the initial setting of a trial date.
“(c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), on motion, for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to a party to propound an additional number of supplemental demands for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.050.)
On December 17, 2024, Plaintiff served supplemental request for production of documents on Penaloza. Penaloza did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Plaintiff filed this motion. Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Penaloza to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections.
The Court grant the motions and orders Penaloza to serve verified code-compliant responses to the supplemental request for production of documents without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by March 19, 2025.
Plaintiff asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 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 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., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Penaloza did not make or oppose a motion to compel responses to the supplemental demand for inspection. Therefore, sanctions are not available under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for this motions. In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46 (PwC), the Supreme Court held: “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 section 2031.300, subdivision
(c), limits the Court’s authority to impose sanctions when (as here) the
non-moving party does not oppose a successful motion to compel responses to a
supplemental inspection demand. Because
the statute addresses this issue, the Court will not invoke its independent
authority to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010
and 2023.030. (See PwC, supra,
17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.)
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Cedric Taite’s motion to compel Defendant Omar Penaloza’s responses to supplemental request for production of documents. The Court orders Defendant Omar Penaloza to serve verified code-compliant responses to the supplemental request for production of documents without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by March 19, 2025.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Cedric Taite’s request 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.