Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV15364, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15364    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff Euraline Marks (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants The Kroger Co. and Does 1-10 for premises liability. 

On July 18, 2024, Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Food 4 Less (incorrectly named and served as The Kroger Co.) (“Defendant”) filed an answer. 

On January 21, 2025, Defendant filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (3) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions.  The motions were set for hearing on April 1, 2025.  Plaintiff did not file oppositions. 

Trial is scheduled for September 29, 2025. 

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 July 22, 2024, Defendant served demand for inspection and 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 files these motions.  Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections. 

The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set one.  The Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections by April 21, 2025 and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by April 21, 2025. 

The Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one.  The Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special and form interrogatories without objections by April 21, 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].) 

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. 

Defendant also requests sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure 2023.030, subdivision (a)(1).  In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46 (PwC), the Supreme Court observed: “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.) The Court denies Defendant’s sanctions requests.  

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Food 4 Less (incorrectly named and served as The Kroger Co.) to compel Plaintiff Euraline Marks’s responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set one.  The Court orders Plaintiff Euraline Marks to serve verified code-compliant responses to the demand for inspection and production of documents without objections by April 21, 2025 and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by April 21, 2025. 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Food 4 Less (incorrectly named and served as The Kroger Co.) to compel Plaintiff Euraline Marks’s responses to special interrogatories, set one.  The Court orders Plaintiff Euraline Marks to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by April 21, 2025. 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Food 4 Less (incorrectly named and served as The Kroger Co.) to compel Plaintiff Euraline Marks’s responses to form interrogatories, set one.  The Court orders Plaintiff Euraline Marks to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by April 21, 2025. 

The Court DENIES the requests for sanctions of Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Food 4 Less (incorrectly named and served as The Kroger Co.). 

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.