Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV12236, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12236 Hearing Date: December 18, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2022, Plaintiffs Destiny Thomas and Jayveon Keys filed this action against Defendants Eric Daniel, Miguel Gonzalez, and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On October 9, 2023, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. On April 24, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal.
On June 20, 2024, Defendants Eric Daniel and Miguel Gonzalez filed an answer.
On October 3, 2024, Defendants Eric Diaz (erroneously sued as Eric Daniel) and Miguel Gomez (“Defendants”) filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one. (Defendants should have filed six separate motions, one for each type of discovery sought from each Plaintiff.) The motion was set for hearing on November 13, 2024. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition. The Court continued the hearing to December 18, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants asks the Court to compel each Plaintiffs’ responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one.
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 June 18, 2024, Defendants served request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Defendants filed this motion.
The Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiffs to serve verified code-compliant responses to the request for production of documents without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 15, 2025.
The Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiffs to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories and form interrogatories without objections by January 15, 2025.
Defendants request sanctions of $1,067.00. 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].)
Plaintiffs 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 this motion. 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.)
Defendants also cite California Rule of Court, rule 3.1348(a), which 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).) Because rule 3.1348(a) authorizes sanctions “under the Discovery Act,” the Court may not award sanctions under rule 3.1348(a) except as the Discovery Act authorizes. As explained, the Discovery Act does not authorize sanctions for Defendants’ unopposed motion to compel responses to requests for production and interrogatories. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ request for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Eric Diaz (erroneously sued as Eric Daniel) and Miguel Gomez to compel Plaintiff Destiny Thomas’s responses to request for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Destiny Thomas to serve verified code-compliant responses to the request for production of documents without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 15, 2025.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Eric Diaz (erroneously sued as Eric Daniel) and Miguel Gomez to compel Plaintiff Jayveon Keys’ responses to request for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Jayveon Keys to serve verified code-compliant responses to the request for production of documents without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 15, 2025.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Eric Diaz (erroneously sued as Eric Daniel) and Miguel Gomez to compel Plaintiff Destiny Thomas’s responses to special interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Destiny Thomas to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by January 15, 2025.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Eric Diaz (erroneously sued as Eric Daniel) and Miguel Gomez to compel Plaintiff Jayveon Keys’ responses to special interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Jayveon Keys to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by January 15, 2025.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Eric Diaz (erroneously sued as Eric Daniel) and Miguel Gomez to compel Plaintiff Destiny Thomas’s responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Destiny Thomas to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by January 15, 2025.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Eric Diaz (erroneously sued as Eric Daniel) and Miguel Gomez to compel Plaintiff Jayveon Keys’ responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Jayveon Keys to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by January 15, 2025.
The Court DENIES the request for sanctions of Defendants Eric Diaz (erroneously sued as Eric Daniel) and Miguel Gomez.
The Court ORDERS Defendants Eric Diaz (erroneously sued as Eric Daniel) and Miguel Gomez to pay the Clerk’s Office of the Los Angeles Superior Court $300.00, consisting of five additional $60.00 filing fees, to compensate the Court for improperly including six requests to compel discovery in one motion.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of these rulings.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.