Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV29686, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV29686 Hearing Date: December 18, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff Natasha Aquino (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Eduardo Bahena (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On April 27, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions (1) to compel Defendant’s responses to request for production, set one, and for sanctions, (2) to compel Defendant’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (3) to compel Defendant’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (4) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set to be heard on December 18, 2023. On November 29, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 11, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendant to serve full and complete verified responses to request for production, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions.
Defendant
requests that the Court deny the motions.
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. Requests for admission
“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.
“(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. 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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
D. 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
A. Motions to compel responses to requests for production, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories
Defendant asserts that he served responses to the requests for production, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories on October 24, 2023. Therefore, Defendant argues, the motions are moot and the Court should not impose sanctions.
The relevant statutes, cited above, provide that when the party to whom the requests for production or interrogatories are directed fails to provide a timely response, the party waives his or her objections to the discovery requests. The party may file a motion for relief from the waiver after serving substantially code-compliant responses.
Defendant has not filed a motion for relief from the waiver. Therefore, Defendant has waived his objections to the requests for production, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. Plaintiff may file a motion to compel further responses if she determines that Defendant’s October 24, 2023 responses are inadequate.
The statutes require that the Court impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses to requests for production or interrogatories unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
Defendant states that the attorney previously assigned to Defendant’s case is no longer with the firm and that Defendant served the responses on October 24, 2023, after Plaintiff filed these motions. The Court finds that Defendant did not act with substantial justification and that sanctions are appropriate.
Plaintiff requests $900 in sanctions for each motion, based on three hours of attorney time at a rate of $300 per hour. Counsel spent three hours meeting and conferring with opposing counsel regarding the discovery dispute, drafting each motion, and preparing for the upcoming hearing. The Court does not award sanctions based on time meeting and conferring. The motions are substantially similar and they are set to be heard together.
The Court grants $750 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour for all three motions.
B. Motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission
On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff served requests for admission, set one, on Defendant. Responses were due on August 14, 2023. Defendant did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Plaintiff filed these motions.
Defendant asserts that he served responses to the requests for admission on October 24, 2023.
The Court shall order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests for admission are deemed admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Plaintiff has not asserted that Defendant’s responses to the requests for admission do not substantially comply with section 2033.220. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission.
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff requests $900 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney work at $300 per hour. Plaintiff’s counsel spent two hours researching and preparing the motion and anticipates spending another hour to prepare for and attend the hearing.
The Court grants $500 in sanctions based on two hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Plaintiff Natasha Aquino to compel Defendant Eduardo Bahena to respond to the requests for production, set one, and orders that Defendant Eduardo Bahena has waived his objections to Plaintiff Natasha Aquino’s requests for production, set one.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Plaintiff Natasha Aquino to compel Defendant Eduardo Bahena to respond to form interrogatories, set one, and orders that Defendant Eduardo Bahena has waived his objections to Plaintiff Natasha Aquino’s form interrogatories, set one.
The Court DENIES the motion of Plaintiff Natasha Aquino to deem admitted matters specified in Plaintiff Natasha Aquino’s requests for admission, set one.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Natasha Aquino's request for sanctions and orders Defendant Eduardo Bahena and his counsel to pay Plaintiff Natasha Aquino $1,250 ($750 plus $500) by January 17, 2024.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of these rulings.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.