Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV22835, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22835 Hearing Date: November 29, 2023 Dept: 28
Having reviewed the motions to compel discovery responses, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2022, Plaintiffs Raul Flores, Maria Ramirez, and Johan Rodriguez, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Raul Flores, filed this action against Defendants Jose Chavira (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On June 9, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On August 31, 2023, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff Raul Flores to provide responses to (1) demand for inspection and production of documents, (2) special interrogatories, and (3) form interrogatories. Defendant also requested monetary sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on November 29, 2023. Plaintiff Raul Flores did not file oppositions.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant Jose Chavira asks the Court to compel Plaintiff Raul
Flores to provide code-compliant responses, without objections, to Defendant’s
demand for inspection and production of documents, special interrogatories, and
form interrogatories, and to award sanctions.
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.)
C. Discovery sanctions
“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:
* * *
“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
Responses were due on August 23, 2023. Plaintiff Raul Flores did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Defendant filed these motions.
The Court grants the motion to compel Plaintiff Raul Flores’s responses to the Specially Prepared Interrogatories (set one). The Court orders Plaintiff Raul Flores to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by December 29, 2023.
The Court grants the motion to compel Plaintiff Raul Flores’s responses to the Form Interrogatories (set one). The Court orders Plaintiff Raul Flores to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by December 29, 2023.
Defendant Jose Chavira requests monetary sanctions of $455.34 for each motion based on two hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $160.17 per hour, one hour of legal assistant time at $75.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee.
The Court will not award sanctions based on legal assistant time. The motions are substantially similar, they are unopposed, and they are set to be heard together. The Court awards sanctions of $820.68 based on four hours of attorney’s time and three filing fees.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Jose Chavira’s motion to compel Plaintiff Raul Flores’s responses to the Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (set one). The Court orders Plaintiff Raul Flores to provide verified, code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by December 29, 2023.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Jose Chavira’s motion to compel Plaintiff Raul Flores’s responses to the Specially Prepared Interrogatories (set one). The Court orders Plaintiff Raul Flores to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by December 29, 2023.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Jose Chavira’s motion to compel Plaintiff Raul Flores’s responses to the Form Interrogatories (set one). The Court orders Plaintiff Raul Flores to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by December 29, 2023.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Jose Chavira’s request for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Raul Flores and his counsel to pay Defendant Jose Chavira $820.68 by December 29, 2023.
Moving party is to give notice of this ruling.