Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV23760, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV23760 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff Michann Denise Meadows (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”), State of California, John Doe, Jesus Martinez (“Martinez”), Jotojot Keene, and Does 1-50 for negligence and statutory liability and negligence.
On March 1, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendant State of California without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On March 5, 2024, Metro filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Martinez and Roes 1-10 for implied indemnity, comparative fault, declaratory relief, and negligence.
On March 19, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendant City of Los Angeles without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On July 16, 2024, Metro filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special and form interrogatories and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on August 12, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Metro asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories and form interrogatories and to impose sanctions.
LEGAL STANDARD
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
On March 8, 2024, Metro served special interrogatories and form interrogatories on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Metro filed these motions.
The Court grants Metro’s motion and orders Plaintiff to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s special and form interrogatories without objections by September 11, 2024.
For future reference, Metro should have filed two separate motions, one to compel responses to the special interrogatories and one to compel responses to the form interrogatories.
Metro requests $2,416.00 in monetary sanctions. Sanctions are available against parties, persons, and attorneys who unsuccessfully make or oppose motions to compel responses to interrogatories. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Plaintiff has not made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories. Therefore, sanctions are not available under this statutes.
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for this motion. 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, review granted Jan. 23, 2023 with order permitting citation of opinion for its persuasive value and to establish the existence of a conflict in authority that would “allow trial courts to exercise discretion . . . to choose between sides of any such conflict.”)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), 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 noted, the Discovery Act does not authorize sanctions for Metro's unopposed motion to compel responses to interrogatories. Therefore, the Court denies Metro's request for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to compel Plaintiff Michann Denise Meadows’s responses to form interrogatories and orders Plaintiff Michann Denise Meadows to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by September 11, 2024.
The Court DENIES Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s request for sanctions.
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.