Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV01709, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV01709 Hearing Date: December 6, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Gilberto Corral filed this action against Defendants Caliber Bodyworks LLC (“Caliber”), RCB Equities Southbay LLC (“RCB Equities”), Jose Castro (“Castro”), and Does 1-50 for negligence and premises liability.
On February 14, 2022, Caliber filed an answer.
On February 24, 2022, RCB Equities filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Caliber and Roes 1-20 for equitable indemnity, express indemnity, apportionment of fault, breach of contract, and declaratory relief. On May 27, 2022, Caliber filed an answer.
On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants MCK Asset Management, Inc. (“MCK”) as Doe 1 and GRG Management Services (“GRG”) as Doe 2.
On October 10, 2022, MCK and GRG filed an answer and MCK filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Caliber and Roes 1-20 for equitable indemnity, express indemnity, apportionment of fault, breach of contract, and declaratory relief. On October 25, 2022, Caliber filed an answer.
On October 11, 2022, GRG filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Caliber and Roes 1-20 for equitable indemnity, express indemnity, apportionment of fault, breach of contract, and declaratory relief. On October 25, 2022, Caliber filed an answer.
On April 26, 2023, Castro filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
On September 19, 2023, MCK and GRG (“Moving Cross-Complainants”) filed a motion to compel Caliber’s responses to request for production of documents and for sanctions. Caliber did not file an opposition.
Trial is current scheduled for October 28, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Moving
Cross-Complainants request that the Court order Caliber
to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections, to the request
for production of documents and produce the documents, electronically stored
information, and/or other things requested. Moving Cross-Complainants also request
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 July 20, 2023, Moving Cross-Complainants served Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One on Caliber.
Responses were due on August 19, 2023. Caliber failed to provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Moving Cross-Complainants filed this motion.
The Court grants the motion and orders Caliber to provide verified, code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 5, 2024.
Cross-Complainants requests monetary sanctions of $265.00 based on one hour of attorney’s work a rate of $180.00 per hour, one $60.00 filing fee and one $25.00 service fee. The Court awards $240.00 in sanctions based on one hour of attorney work and one filing fee.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants and Cross-Complainants MCK Asset Management, Inc., and GRG Management Services to compel Defendant and Cross-Defendant Caliber Bodyworks LLC’s responses to the request for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Defendant and Cross-Defendant Caliber Bodyworks LLC 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 5, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions of Defendants and Cross-Complainants MCK Asset Management, Inc., and GRG Management Services and orders Defendant and Cross-Defendant Caliber Bodyworks LLC and its counsel to pay Defendants and Cross-Complainants MCK Asset Management, Inc., and GRG Management Services $240 in sanctions by January 5, 2024.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.