Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV34533, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV34533 Hearing Date: October 6, 2023 Dept: 28
|
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff Tsunami Glover (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Nayeli Corado, Anderson Cardona, and Does 1-30 for motor vehicle and general negligence. On February 14, 2023, Defendants Anderson Cardona and Leidy Nayeli Corado filed an answer. On September 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Leidy Nayeli Corado’s responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission, and for sanctions. On September 25, 2023, Defendant Leidy Nayeli Corado (“Defendant”) filed an opposition. On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply. Trial is currently scheduled for April 26, 2024. PARTIES’ REQUESTS Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant’s responses
to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests, deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, and impose sanctions. LEGAL STANDARD A. Inspection demand “(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 admissions “(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). “(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 . . . *
* * “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) DISCUSSION |
On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff served a request for production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission on Plaintiff. Responses were due June 26, 2023. On June 29, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred about the overdue responses. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to a two-week extension, to July 14, 2023, conditioned on Defendant’s waiver of objections. On July 14, Plaintiff’s counsel granted another two-week extension to July 28, 2023. Defendant had not provided responses by the time Plaintiff filed the motion to compel on September 8, 2023.
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant to provide verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to the request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories, and to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission.
B. Defendant’s opposition
Defendant argues the discovery issues are moot because she served responses to the discovery two weeks after Plaintiff filed the motion to compel. Defendant has attached copies of the discovery responses to her opposition to the motion. The responses include objections.
C. Plaintiff’s reply
Plaintiff argues the matter is not moot because Defendant’s untimely discovery responses were deficient and included objections.
D. Analysis
1. Request for production of documents
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, when Defendant failed to serve a timely response to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, Defendant “waive[d] 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).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Defendant has not filed a motion for relief from the waiver. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff moved for “an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Because Defendant's responses include objections, the Court has authority to grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405 [construing Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b) (interrogatories), which contains language analogous to Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b) (demand for inspection)].)
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents and orders Defendant to provide verified, code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by November 6, 2023. The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions as discussed below.
2. Interrogatories
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, when Defendant failed to serve a timely response to Plaintiff’s special and form interrogatories, Defendant “waive[d] 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).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) Defendant has not filed a motion for relief from the waiver. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff moved for “an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) Because Defendant's responses include objections, the Court has authority to grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the form and special interrogatories and orders Defendant to provide verified, code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by November 6, 2023. The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions as discussed below.
3. Requests for admission
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, when Defendant failed to serve a timely response to Plaintiff’s requests for admission, Defendant “waive[d] 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).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) Defendant has not filed a motion for relief from the waiver. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff has moved “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, subd. (b).)
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
In his reply, Plaintiff does not identify any deficiencies in the late-filed responses to requests for admissions. Plaintiff argues generally that that the discovery responses are “deficient” and include “countless boiler-plate objections.” Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant “failed to provide substantive responses to many of the interrogatories served by Plaintiff.” The responses to the requests for admission do not include any objections.
The responses to requests for admission substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission. The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, however, as discussed below. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
E. Sanctions and additional filing fees
Plaintiff was required to file a separate motion for each type of discovery at issue. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay $180 in additional filing fees to the Court.
Plaintiff requests $2,560.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, one hour to prepare a reply, and one hour to attend the hearing, at counsel’s hourly rate of $500 per hour, plus one $60 filing fee.
The Court grants Plaintiff $990 in sanctions based on 3 hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour and 4 filing fees.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Tsunami Glover’s motion to compel Defendant Leidy Nayeli Corado’s responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Defendant to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections by November 6, 2023.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Tsunami Glover’s motion to deem
admitted the matters specified in Plaintiff’s requests for admission, set one,
served on Defendant Leidy Nayeli Corado.
The Court orders Plaintiff Tsunami Glover to pay $180 in additional filing fees to the Court.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Tsunami Glover’s request for sanctions and orders Defendant Leidy Nayeli Corado and her counsel to pay Plaintiff $990 in sanctions by November 6, 2023.
Moving party is to give notice of this ruling.