Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV30273, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV30273 Hearing Date: April 3, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 15, 2022, Plaintiff Freddy Funes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Samuel Avetisyan (“Avetisyan”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Ermine Pilavdzhyan (“Defendant”) as Doe 1.
On December 12, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.
On December 29, 2023, the Court found that this case (22STCV30273) and case number 23VECV01104 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV30273 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. Plaintiff also requested sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on April 3, 2024. On March 18, 2024, Defendant filed oppositions. On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed replies.
Trial is currently scheduled for September 13, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant to serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. Plaintiff also requests sanctions.
Defendant asks the Court to deny the motions and the requests for 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.)
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 April 24, 2023, Plaintiff served request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set one, and requests for admission, set one, on Defendant. Defendant did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Plaintiff filed the motions to compel on January 5, 2024.
Defendant asserts that she served verified responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission on March 18, 2024. Defendant asks the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motions and requests for sanctions.
Plaintiff does not deny that his counsel received Defendant’s March 18, 2024 discovery responses but argues the Court should nonetheless award sanctions to compensate him for having to file these motions.
Defendant’s service of discovery responses on March 18, 2024 renders moot Plaintiff’s requests to compel discovery responses and to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission.
The Court is required, however, to grant Plaintiff’s request for sanctions on his 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”].) Plaintiff requests $860.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time at a rate of $400.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. Counsel spent 1.5 hours preparing the moving papers and anticipated spending .5 hours to review the opposition and prepare a reply and one hour to attend the hearing. The Court grants $560.00 in sanctions based on two hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and one filing fee.
Plaintiff also requests 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].) Defendant’s oppositions were successful because the Court is denying these motions as moot. Therefore, sanctions are not available under these statutes.
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award. (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 therefore denies Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions on the motions to compel responses to the request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories.
Plaintiff should have filed the motion to compel responses to the special interrogatories and form interrogatories as two motions, one for each type of discovery. The Court orders Plaintiff to pay an additional $60.00 filing fee to the Court.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff Freddy Funes’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one.
The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff Freddy Funes’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one.
The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff Freddy Funes’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, except with respect to Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Freddy Funes’s request for sanctions on his motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and orders Defendant Ermine Pilavdzhyan and her counsel to pay Plaintiff Freddy Funes $560.00 in sanctions by May 1, 2024.
The Court orders Plaintiff Freddy Funes to pay one additional $60.00 filing fee to the Court by May 1, 2024.
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.