Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV06501, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 22STCV06501 Hearing Date: February 6, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff Olga Veronica Lopez Quiroz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for negligence, including Government Code sections 815.2, 815.4, and 820, and dangerous condition of public property, including Government Code sections 815.4, 835, 840.2, and 840.4.
On October 27, 2023, Defendant filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants The County of Los Angeles and Roes 1-10 for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief.
On December 18, 2024, Defendant filed (1) an amended motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) an amended motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (3) an amended motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on February 6, 2025. Plaintiff has not filed oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 18, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one. Defendant also asks the Court 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.)
DISCUSSION
On January 29, 2024, Defendant served requests for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Defendant filed these motions.
The Court grants Defendant’s motions and orders Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections to the requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by March 10, 2025.
Defendant asks the Court to impose monetary sanctions on Plaintiff. 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. (See PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.)
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to compel Plaintiff Olga Veronica Lopez Quiroz’s responses to requests for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Olga Veronica Lopez Quiroz to serve code-compliant verified responses to the requests for production of documents without objections by March 10, 2025 and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by March 10, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to compel Plaintiff Olga Veronica Lopez Quiroz’s responses to special interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Olga Veronica Lopez Quiroz to serve code-compliant verified responses to the special interrogatories without objections by March 10, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to compel Plaintiff Olga Veronica Lopez Quiroz’s responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Olga Veronica Lopez Quiroz to serve code-compliant verified responses to the form interrogatories without objections by March 10, 2025.
The Court DENIES Defendant City of Los Angeles’s requests 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.