Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV23908, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV23908 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff Euler Angel Valverde Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Hanhil Properties, Inc. (“Hanhil”), Michael Hashim (“Michael Hashim”), Tazim Hashim (Tazim Hashim”), Rohel Last Name Unknown for, and Does 1-100 for general negligence and premises liability.
On October 13, 2022, Hanhil, Michael Hashim, and Tazim Hashim filed an answer.
On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Rohem Hashim (“Rohem Hashim”) as Doe 1.
On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Rahil Hashim (“Rahil Hashim”) as Doe 2.
On November 30, 2023, Rahil Hashim filed an answer.
On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions (1) to compel responses to requests for production of documents, set two, and for sanctions, (2) to compel responses to special interrogatories, set two, and for sanctions, and (3) to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set to be heard on January 24, 2024. On January 12, 2024, Hanhil’s counsel filed declarations opposing the motions. On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 15, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Hanhil’s responses to requests for production, set two, and special interrogatories, set two, and compel Hanhil’s further response to form interrogatories, set one. Plaintiff requests that the Court impose sanctions on Hanhil for each motion.
Hanhil requests that the Court 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.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides:
“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
“(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
“(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides:
“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.
“(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
“(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
“(b) (1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.
“(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 further 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.
“(e) If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300.)
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories
On April 19, 2023, Plaintiff served form interrogatories, set one, on Hanhil. On May 23, 2023, Hanhil served responses. Plaintiff met and conferred with Hanhil about the responses. On September 20, 2023, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference with the Court. On October 11, 2023, Hanhil served further responses.
Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Hanhil’s counsel about the adequacy of Hanhil’s further responses. Hanhil did not provide additional responses by the time Plaintiff filed this motion.
In his opposing declaration, Hanhil’s counsel asserts that Hanhil’s further responses served on October 11, 2023 were adequate and Plaintiff was required to schedule an additional informal discovery conference if Plaintiff wished to challenge the adequacy of the further responses.
The Court grants the motion to compel further responses. Hanhil’s original and further responses did not answer the “subparts” of the questions. No additional informal discovery conference was required.
The Court orders Hanhil to provide further verified, code-compliant responses to form interrogatories, set one (number 17.1) by February 23, 2024.
Plaintiff requests sanctions of $561.65 in sanctions. Counsel spent approximately 3.0 hours engaging in the meet and confer process (including the IDC) and approximately 2.0 hours in preparing the motion. Counsel’s billing rate is $500 per hour. Plaintiff also requests $61.65 in filing fees.
The Court does not award sanctions for meeting and conferring. The Court awards $561.65 in sanctions based on two hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour and one filing fee.
B. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents and special interrogatories
On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff served requests for production of documents, set two, and special interrogatories, set two, on Hanhil. Hanhil did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Plaintiff filed these motions on December 7, 2023.
On December 29, 2023, Hanhil served responses to the requests for production of documents and special interrogatories. The responses are code-compliant and contain no objections. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions are moot with respect to the requests to compel responses to the discovery.
Sanctions are not available because Hanhil has not unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Euler Angel Valverde Garcia’s request for sanctions on the motion to compel Defendant Hanhil Properties, Inc.’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one (number 17.1) and orders Defendant Hanhil Properties, Inc. and its counsel to pay Plaintiff Euler Angel Valverde Garcia $561.65 by February 23, 2024.
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff Euler Angel Valverde Garcia’s motion to compel Defendant Hanhil Properties, Inc.’s responses to request for production of documents, set two, and denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff Euler Angel Valverde Garcia’s motion to compel Defendant Hanhil Properties, Inc.’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and denies Plaintiff’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.