Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV16183, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16183    Hearing Date: July 30, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On May 16, 2022, Plaintiffs Edgardo Diaz (“Diaz”) and Carmina Tiscareno (“Tiscareno”) filed this action against Defendants Jeffrey Forst (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On July 1, 2022, Defendant filed an answer. 

On May 23, 2024, Defendant filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to supplemental demands for production of documents and things, set two, and for sanctions, and (2) a motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to supplemental interrogatories, set two, and for sanctions.  The motions were set for hearing on June 17, 2024.  On June 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed oppositions.  On June 10, 2024, Defendant filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to July 30, 2024. 

Trial is currently scheduled for October 9, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to supplemental demands for production of documents and things, set two, and supplemental interrogatories, set two.  Defendant also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny the motions.   

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 

A.   Motions to compel  

On January 8, 2024, Defendant served (1) supplemental demands for production of documents and things, set two, and (2) supplemental interrogatories, set two, on Plaintiffs. 

On February 9, 2024, Plaintiffs served unverified responses.  "Where a verification is required [citation], an unverified response is ineffective; it is the equivalent of no response at all."  (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 8:1113, pp. 8F-54 to 8F-55.) 

Defendant’s counsel met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel about Plaintiffs’ verifications.  Despite Plaintiffs' counsel's promises to provide the verifications, Defendant did not receive the verifications by the time Defendant filed these motions (on May 23, 2024) or by the time Defendant filed the reply (on June 10, 2024). 

Plaintiffs argue the Court should deny Defendant’s motions to compel because Plaintiffs’ counsel intended to provide the verifications prior to the June 17, 2024 hearing.  Plaintiffs have not informed the Court whether they served the verifications. 

The Court grants Defendant's motions.  The Court orders Plaintiffs to provide verified code-compliant responses to the supplemental demand for production of documents and things without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by August 29, 2024.  The Court orders Plaintiffs to provide verified code-compliant responses to the supplemental interrogatories without objections by August 29, 2024. 

B.   Sanctions requests 

Defendant requests $760.00 in sanctions on each motion to compel based on four hours of attorney time at $175.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee.  Counsel spent two hours preparing each motion and two hours to travel and appear at the hearing. 

The Court awards Defendant $645.00 in sanctions for both motions based on three hours of attorney time and two filing fees. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Jeffrey Forst’s motion to compel Plaintiff Edgardo Diaz’s responses to supplemental demand for production of documents and things, set two, and orders Plaintiff Edgardo Diaz to provide verified code-compliant responses to the supplemental demand for production of documents and things without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by August 29, 2024. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Jeffrey Forst’s motion to compel Plaintiff Carmina Tiscareno’s responses to supplemental demand for production of documents and things, set two, and orders Plaintiff Carmina Tiscareno to provide verified code-compliant responses to the supplemental demand for production of documents and things without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by August 29, 2024. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Jeffrey Forst’s motion to compel Plaintiff Edgardo Diaz’s responses to supplemental interrogatories, set two, and orders Plaintiff Edgardo Diaz to provide verified code-compliant responses to the supplemental interrogatories without objections by August 29, 2024. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Jeffrey Forst’s motion to compel Plaintiff Carmina Tiscareno’s responses to supplemental interrogatories, set two, and orders Plaintiff Carmina Tiscareno to provide verified code-compliant responses to the supplemental interrogatories without objections by August 29, 2024. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Jeffrey Forst’s requests for sanctions and orders Plaintiffs Edgardo Diaz and Carmina Tiscareno and their counsel to pay Defendant Jeffrey Forst $645.00 by August 29, 2024. 

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.