Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV33817, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV33817 Hearing Date: May 22, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff Mario Hernandez Gomez filed this action against Defendants Belmont Enterprises, LLC (“Belmont”), The Saint Agnes Hotel, LLC (“Saint Agnes Hotel”), and Does 1-30 for general negligence and premises liability.
On January 9, 2023, Belmont filed an answer.
On February 24, 2023, the Court dismissed the Saint Agnes Hotel without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On April 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed one motion asking the Court (1) to compel Belmont’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, (2) to compel Belmont’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, (3) to compel Belmont’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and (4) to compel Belmont’s responses to requests for admission, set one. Plaintiff also asked the Court to impose sanctions on Belmont. The motion was set for hearing on May 22, 2024. Belmont has not filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for October 4, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court (1) to compel Belmont’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, (2) to compel Belmont’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, (3) to compel Belmont’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and (4) to compel Belmont’s responses to requests for admission, set one. In addition, Plaintiff asks the Court to impose sanctions on Belmont.
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 December 14, 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 Belmont.
Belmont did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Plaintiff filed this motion on April 29, 2024.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s request to compel responses to the request for production of documents and orders Belmont to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by June 21, 2024.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s request to compel responses to the special and form interrogatories and orders Belmont to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special and form interrogatories without objections by June 21, 2024.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the requests for admission. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 does not authorize the Court to compel responses to requests for admission.
Plaintiff 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].) Belmont 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.”)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), provides: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1348(a).) “ ‘Rules of court have the force of law and are as binding as procedural statutes as long as they are not inconsistent with statutory or constitutional law.’ ” (Fidelity National Home Warranty Company Cases (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 812, 842, fn. 41, quoting In re I.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 249, 256.) Interpreting rule 3.1348(a) to authorize an award of sanctions on the motions to compel would be inconsistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.
Plaintiff should have filed four separate motions, one for each type of discovery, rather than a single motion. The Court orders Plaintiff to pay the Court three additional filing fees.
In addition, Plaintiff’s moving papers contain numerous formatting flaws. Some of the attachments to the motion are unreadable. Although the Court did not base its rulings on the formatting defects, the Court reminds Plaintiff’s counsel to check his papers before filing them.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Mario Hernandez Gomez’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Defendant Belmont Enterprises, LLC to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by June 21, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Mario Hernandez Gomez’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Defendant Belmont Enterprises, LLC to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by June 21, 2024.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Mario Hernandez Gomez’s motion to compel responses to requests for admission, set one.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Mario Hernandez Gomez’s requests for sanctions.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Mario Hernandez Gomez to pay the Court $180.00, consisting of three additional filing fees.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of the Court’s ruling within five days.