Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV04176, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04176    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND 

On February 2, 2022, Plaintiffs Sara Martinez and Christian Martinez (“Christian Martinez”) filed this action against Defendants Erica Imsen (“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 for negligence and loss of consortium. 

On January 12, 2024, Defendant filed an answer. 

On September 30, 2024, Defendant filed (1) a motion to compel Christian Martinez’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and (2) a motion to compel Christian Martinez’s responses to form interrogatories, set one.  On October 10, 2024, Defendant filed amended motions.  The motions were set for hearing on December 5, 2024.  Plaintiff has not filed oppositions. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS 

Defendant asks the Court to compel Christian Martinez’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and form interrogatories, set one.  Defendant also asks the Court to impose monetary 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.   Interrogatories 

“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 

On January 12, 2024, Defendant served request for production of documents, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Christian Martinez.  Christian Martinez did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Defendant filed these amended motions. 

The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Christian Martinez’s responses to request for production of documents, set one.  The Court orders Christian Martinez to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 3, 2025. 

The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Christian Martinez’s responses to form interrogatories, set one.  The Court orders Christian Martinez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by January 3, 2025. 

Defendant requests monetary sanctions on each motion. 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].) 

Christian Martinez 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.  (See PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.) 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Erica Imsen’s motion to compel Plaintiff Christian Martinez’s responses to request for production of documents, set one.  The Court orders Plaintiff Christian Martinez to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 3, 2025.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Erica Imsen’s motion to compel Plaintiff Christian Martinez’s responses to form interrogatories, set one.  The Court orders Plaintiff Christian Martinez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by January 3, 2025. 

The Court DENIES Defendant Erica Imsen’s requests for sanctions. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of these rulings. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.