Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV02508, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV02508 Hearing Date: May 14, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Byambadorj Tsendayush, Uber Technologies, Raiser LLC, Raiser-CA LLC, and Does 1-50 for negligence.
On October 2, 2023, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (erroneously sued as Uber Technologies), Rasier, LLC (erroneously sued as Raiser LLC), and Rasier-CA, LLC (erroneously sued as Raiser-CA LLC) filed an answer.
On October 4, 2023, Defendant Byambadorj Tsendayush (“Defendant”) filed an answer.
On April 8, 2024, Defendant filed motions (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (3) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (4) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on May 14, 2024.
On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a late opposition to the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. Plaintiff did not file oppositions to the other motions.
Trial is currently scheduled for November 4, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request 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 deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. Defendant also asks the Court to award sanctions.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and to deny Defendant's request for sanctions on the motion.
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.)
C. Requests for admission
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides:
“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, 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 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
DISCUSSION
On November 1, 2023, Defendant served request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set one, and requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by March 20, 2024.
The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by June 13, 2024.
The Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the special and form interrogatories and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special and form interrogatories without objections by June 13, 2024.
Defendant asserts that he served tardy but verified, objection-free responses to the requests for admission on April 9, 2024 and May 13, 2024. A copy of the responses are attached to Defendant’s opposition. The Court finds that the responses are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. Because Defendant served responses to the requests for admission before the May 14, 2024 hearing on the motion, the Court denies the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Defendant requests sanctions on the motions to compel responses to the request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, sanctions are available against parties, persons, and attorneys who unsuccessfully make or oppose a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or requests for production. (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 requests for production. Therefore, sanctions are not available under these statutes.
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for these motions. (See Code Civ. Proc, § 2023.010.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 is “ ‘definitional’ and monetary sanctions may not be imposed based solely on [the statute]. Monetary sanctions may be imposed only if authorized by some other provision of the Discovery Act.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 8:1900, p. 8M-2; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 [court may impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or other provision of this title”]; City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 498-504 (PricewaterhouseCoopers), review granted Jan. 23, 2023 with order permitting citation of opinion for its persuasive value and to establish the existence of a conflict in authority that would “allow trial courts to exercise discretion . . . to choose between sides of any such conflict.”)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), provides: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1348(a).) “ ‘Rules of court have the force of law and are as binding as procedural statutes as long as they are not inconsistent with statutory or constitutional law.’ ” (Fidelity National Home Warranty Company Cases (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 812, 842, fn. 41, quoting In re I.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 249, 256.) Interpreting rule 3.1348(a) to authorize an award of sanctions on Defendant's motions to compel would be inconsistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.)
Defendant argues the Court is required to grant sanctions on the motions to compel under Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko). But Sinaiko did not address whether a court may award sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 against parties who did not make or oppose a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production. “It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions that are not considered.” (PricewaterhouseCoopers, supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 506.)
The Court is required to grant Defendant’s request for sanctions on his motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c) [“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion”].) Defendant requests $1,110.00 in sanctions based on five hours of attorney time at a rate of $210.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. Defendant’s counsel spent three hours preparing the motion and supporting documents and anticipated spending over two hours to prepare reply papers, prepare for the hearing, travel to and from the hearing, and attend the hearing.
The Court grants $480.00 in sanctions based on two hours of attorney time and one filing fee.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Byambadorj Tsendayush’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by June 13, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Byambadorj Tsendayush’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by June 13, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Byambadorj Tsendayush’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by June 13, 2024.
The Court DENIES Defendant Byambadorj Tsendayush’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one.
The Court DENIES Defendant Byambadorj Tsendayush’s requests for sanctions on his motions to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Byambadorj Tsendayush’s request for sanctions on his motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. The Court awards $480.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez and his counsel to be paid to Defendant Byambadorj Tsendayush by June 13, 2024.
Moving party is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
Moving party is to file proof of service of the Court’s ruling within five days.