Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV08569, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV08569 Hearing Date: March 19, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Irene Lomeli, Jaleen Jones, and Angel Alston (“Alston”) filed this action against Defendants Ricardo Menola Garcia, Activ Enterprises, LLC (“Activ”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On October 18, 2022, Activ filed an answer. On February 2, 2023, Defendant Ricardo Mendiola Garcia (erroneously sued and served as Ricardo Menola Garcia) filed an answer.
On May 17, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as Alston’s counsel.
On January 26, 2024, the Court dismissed the claims of Plaintiffs Irene Lomeli and Jaleen Jones with prejudice at their request.
On February 8, 2024, Activ filed (1) a motion to compel Alston’s responses to requests for production of documents, set two, (2) a motion to compel Alston’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, (3) a motion to compel Alson’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, and (4) a “Motion to Compel [Alston’s] Requests for Admissions, Set Two.” Alston has not filed oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 8, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Activ asks the Court (1) to compel Alston’s responses to requests for production of documents, set two, (2) to compel Alston’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, (3) to compel Alson’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, and (4) to “Compel [Alston’s] Requests for Admissions, Set Two.” Activ also requests monetary sanctions.
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
On August 23, 2023, Activ served requests for production of documents, set two, special interrogatories, set two, form interrogatories, set two, and requests for admission, set two, on Alston.
Alston did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Activ filed the motions to compel.
The Court grants the motions to compel responses to the requests for production of documents, set two, special interrogatories, set two, and form interrogatories, set two, and orders Alston to serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by April 18, 2024.
As noted, Activ’s motion regarding the requests for admission is titled “Motion to Compel [Alston’s] Requests for Admissions, Set Two.” The body of the motion initially asks the Court to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission. (Motion p. 1.) Subsequently, however, Activ describes the motion as a “motion to compel” (Motion p. 2). Heading III of the motion asserts: “Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Requests [for] Admissions is Within the Scope of the Discovery Act.” (Motion p. 3, capitalization, bold, and underlining omitted.) Heading IV of the motion asserts: “This Court Should Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions Immediately.” (Motion p. 4, capitalization, bold, and underlining omitted.) The motion argues that “the Court should compel Plaintiff to provide full and complete responses to the outstanding discovery requests, without objection.” (Motion p. 3.)
The Court construes Activ’s motion as a request to compel Alston to provide responses to the requests for admission and not as a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. Because the motion mostly requests an order compelling responses, Alston, who is unrepresented, might not have understood that Activ was requesting an order deeming admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission. As a result, it would be unfair to Alston to deem the matters admitted.
The Court grants Activ’s motion to compel Alston to provide responses to the requests for admission and orders Alston to provide code-compliant verified responses, without objections, by April 18, 2024.
Activ requests sanctions on each motion. However, Alston has not made or opposed a motion to compel responses to requests for production, interrogatories, or requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Activ also relies on the statutory definition of misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2023.010.) However, “[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.)
Because Activ has not identified a statutory basis for sanctions on its motions to compel, the Court denies the requests for monetary sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Activ Enterprises, LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Angel Alston’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and orders Plaintiff Angel Alston to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by April 18, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Activ Enterprises, LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Angel Alston’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, and orders Plaintiff Angel Alston to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by April 18, 2024.
The Court DENIES Defendant Activ Enterprises, LLC’s requests for sanctions.
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.