Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV02508, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV02508 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving 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 filed an answer.
On August 28, 2024, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set two, (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, (3) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, and (4) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two. The motions were set for hearing on November 6, 2024. On October 30, 2024, Uber filed a notice of non-opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 7, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Uber asks the Court (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set two, special interrogatories, set two, and form interrogatories, set two, (2) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Plaintiff, and (3) to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
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).
“(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. 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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
DISCUSSION
The Court grants Uber’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses
to request for production of documents, set two, and orders Plaintiff to serve
verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the
documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested
without objections by December 6, 2024.
The Court grants Uber’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and form interrogatories, set two, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special and form interrogatories without objections by December 6, 2024.
The Court grants Uber’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Plaintiff and deems the matters admitted.
Uber requests sanctions on the motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set two, special interrogatories, set two, and form interrogatories, set two. 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. 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, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for these 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 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 these statutes address this issue, the Court will not invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. (PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.)
The Court is required to grant Uber’s request for sanctions on its motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two. (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”].)
Uber requests $1,800.00 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time to prepare the motion at a rate of $300.00 per hour, .25 hours of attorney time attempting to meet and confer with Plaintiff at a rate of $300.00 per hour, .5 hours of attorney time to review the motion prior to filing at a rate of $575.00 per hour, and one hour of attorney time to attend the hearing at a rate of $300.00 per hour.
The Court grants Uber $750.00 in sanctions based on
three hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez’s responses to request for production of documents, set two, and orders Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by December 6, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, and orders Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by December 6, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez. The Court deems the matters admitted.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s request for sanctions on its motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez and his counsel to pay Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. $750.00 by December 6, 2024.
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.