Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV24925, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV24925 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2022, Plaintiffs Ruben Rosado, Jr. (“Rosado”) and William Burden filed this action against Defendants Donna Dungee, Justin Jovan Dungee-Fuller, and Does 1-5 for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On
December 20, 2023, Defendants
Donna Dungee and Justin Jovan Dungee-Fuller (“Defendants”) filed an answer.
On March 19, 2024, Defendants filed motions (1) to compel Rosado’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, (2) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Rosado, and (3) to impose sanctions on Rosado and his counsel. Rosado has not filed oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 16, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants ask the Court (1) to compel Rosado’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, (2) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Rosado, and (3) to impose sanctions on Rosado and his counsel.
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.)
C. Requests for admission
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides:
“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, 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 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
DISCUSSION
On January 11, 2024, Defendants served request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set one, and requests for admission, set one, on Rosado. Rosado did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Defendants filed these motions on March 19, 2024.
The Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents and orders Rosado to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by May 7, 2024.
The Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the special and form interrogatories and orders Rosado to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special and form interrogatories without objections by May 7, 2024.
The Court grants Defendants’ motion to deem admitted matters specified in the requests for admission and deems those matters admitted.
Defendants request sanctions on the motions to compel responses to the request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, sanctions are available against parties, persons, and attorneys who unsuccessfully make or oppose a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or requests for production. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand for inspection].) Rosado did not make or oppose a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production. Therefore, sanctions are not available under these statutes.
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for these motions. (See Code Civ. Proc, § 2023.010.) 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.)
The Court is required to grant Defendants’ request for sanctions on their motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c) [“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion”].) Defendants request $800.00 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time at a rate of $200.00 per hour. Defendants’ counsel spent one hour attempting to meet and confer with Rosado’s counsel and two hours preparing the moving papers. Defendants’ counsel anticipated spending one hour to attend the hearing. The Court grants $400.00 in sanctions based on two hours of attorney time.
The Court GRANTS the motion to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, filed by Defendants Donna Dungee and Justin Jovan Dungee-Fuller and orders Plaintiff Ruben Rosado, Jr. to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by May 7, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, filed by Defendants Donna Dungee and Justin Jovan Dungee-Fuller and orders Plaintiff Ruben Rosado, Jr. to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by May 7, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion filed by Defendants Donna Dungee and Justin Jovan Dungee-Fuller to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff Ruben Rosado, Jr. and deems the matters admitted.
The Court DENIES the requests for sanctions of Defendants Donna Dungee and Justin Jovan Dungee-Fuller on their motions to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one.
The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions of Defendants Donna Dungee and Justin Jovan Dungee-Fuller on their motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. The Court awards $400.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff Ruben Rosado, Jr., and his counsel, jointly, to be paid to Defendants Donna Dungee and Justin Jovan Dungee-Fuller by May 7, 2024.
Moving parties are to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
Moving parties are to file proof of service of the Court’s ruling within five days.