Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV26026, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV26026 Hearing Date: April 17, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 11, 2022, Plaintiffs Tori Simpson (“Simpson”) and Julie Williams (“Williams”) filed this action against Defendants Josue Aaron Agustin Molina (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for negligence.
On December 6, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.
On October 17, 2023, the Court found that this case (case number 22STCV26026) and case number 21STLC03279 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV26026 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On March 6, 2024, Defendant filed motions to compel Simpson’s responses to (1) Defendant's demand for production of documents, set one, (2) Defendant's special interrogatories, set one, and (3) Defendant's form interrogatories, set one. Defendant also requested sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on April 16, 2024. The Court continued the hearing to April 17, 2024. Simpson did not file oppositions.
Also on March 6, 2024, Defendant filed motions to compel Williams’s responses to (1) Defendant's demand for production of documents, set one, (2) Defendant's special interrogatories, set one, and (3) Defendant's form interrogatories, set one. Defendant also requested sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on April 17, 2024. Williams did not file oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for August 26, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court (1) to compel Simpson’s responses to demand for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories, (2) to compel Williams’s responses to demand for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories, and (3) to award monetary sanctions.
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
On December 6, 2022, Defendant served demands for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Simpson and Williams. Simpson and Williams did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Defendant filed these motions 15 months later, on March 6, 2024.
The Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the demands for production of documents and orders Simpson and Williams 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 17, 2024.
The Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the special and form interrogatories and orders Simpson and Williams to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special and form interrogatories without objections by May 17, 2024.
Defendant requests sanctions on the motions to compel responses to the demands 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].) Simpson and Williams 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, 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.”)
The Court denies Defendant's requests for sanctions.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Josue Aaron Agustin Molina’s motion to compel responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Tori Simpson 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 17, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Josue Aaron Agustin Molina’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Tori Simpson to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by May 17, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Josue Aaron Agustin Molina’s motion to compel responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Julie Williams 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 17, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Josue Aaron Agustin Molina’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Julie Williams to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by May 17, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Josue Aaron Agustin Molina’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Julie Williams to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by May 17, 2024.
The Court DENIES Defendant Josue Aaron Agustin Molina’s requests for sanctions.
Moving party is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
Moving party is to file proof of service of the Court’s ruling within five days.