Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV34970, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

                                       Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.  This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.    
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 22STCV34970    Hearing Date: June 2, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

A.      Prior proceedings 

On November 2, 2022, Plaintiff Alfonso Midence (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Does 1-50 for negligence and premises liability. 

On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant R & A Harper, LLC ("Harper") as Doe 1. 

On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Harper and Does 1-50 for negligence and premises liability. 

On April 4, 2024, Harper filed an answer. 

On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Nicolas P. Bru (“Bru”) as Doe 2. 

On March 5, 2025, Harper filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production of documents, set two, and for sanctions and (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and for sanctions, (3) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, and for sanctions, and (4) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff and for sanctions.  The motions were set for hearing on May 9 and June 2, 2025. 

On May 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss Harper with prejudice.  On May 9, 2025, the Court granted the request and dismissed Harper with prejudice. 

Also on May 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Harper, Bru, and Does 3-50 for negligence and premises liability.  Plaintiff did not obtain leave of Court or a stipulation to file a second amended complaint. 

On May 9, 2025, Harper’s counsel advised the Court that Harper did not consider the motions filed March 5, 2025 to be moot because Harper wished to have the Court address Harper’s requests for sanctions.  The Court continued the motions set for hearing on May 9, 2025 to June 2, 2025. 

On May 19, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration opposing Harper’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories, and opposing Harper's sanctions requests. 

Trial is scheduled for November 17, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Harper asks the Court (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production of documents, set two, and award sanctions, (2)  to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and award sanctions, (3) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, and award sanctions, and (4) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff and award sanctions. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motions and sanctions requests. 

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). 

“(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.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   Harper’s status 

Harper’s status in the case is unclear.  As noted, on May 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss Harper with prejudice.  On May 9, 2025, the Court granted the request and dismissed Harper with prejudice. 

On May 8, 2025, however, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Harper, Bru, and Does 3-50 for negligence and premises liability.  The second amended complaint names Harper as a defendant in the caption and in paragraphs 9 and 10.  Plaintiff did not obtain leave of Court or a stipulation before filing the second amended complaint. 

Plaintiff should clarify Harper’s status in the case. 

B.   Harper’s motions 

On November 4, 2024, Harper served requests for production of documents, set two, special interrogatories, set two, form interrogatories, set two, and requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Harper filed these motions.

Harper's motions asked the Court to order Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections to the requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories, to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, and to award sanctions.  However, Harper now asks the Court only to grant sanctions on the motions. 

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection 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.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand for inspection].) 

Here, the Court is not granting Harper’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, or form interrogatories.  As a result, Plaintiff did not “unsuccessfully” make or oppose a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or a demand for inspection. Therefore, sanctions are not available under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. 

Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for these motions.  In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46 (PwC), the Supreme Court held: “It is already well-established that a court may not rely on [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2023.030 to override the limitations prescribed by any other applicable sanctions provision in the [Civil Discovery] Act.  A court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision.  And where it invokes that authority, it is constrained by the long-settled rules generally governing the imposition of discovery sanctions under the Act.”  (PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.) 

Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), and 2031.300, subdivision (c), limit the Court’s authority to impose sanctions when (as here) the non-moving party does not unsuccessfully oppose a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands.  Because these statutes address this issue, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030.  (See PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.) 

In contrast, “[i]t 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 [a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission].”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Harper requests $1,140.00 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time at a rate of $270.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee.  Counsel spent one hour preparing the motion and anticipated spending another three hours to review Plaintiff’s opposition, prepare a reply, and attend the hearing.  The Court awards $1,060.00 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and one filing fee. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES as moot Defendant R & A Harper, LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Alfonso Midence’s responses to requests for production of documents, set two.  The Court DENIES Defendant R & A Harper, LLC’s request for sanctions on this motion. 

The Court DENIES as moot Defendant R & A Harper, LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Alfonso Midence’s responses to special interrogatories, set two.  The Court DENIES Defendant R & A Harper, LLC’s request for sanctions on this motion. 

The Court DENIES as moot Defendant R & A Harper, LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Alfonso Midence’s responses to form interrogatories, set two.  The Court DENIES Defendant R & A Harper, LLC’s request for sanctions on this motion. 

The Court DENIES as moot Defendant R & A Harper, LLC’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one.  The Court GRANTS Defendant R & A Harper, LLC’s request for sanctions on this motion and orders Plaintiff Alfonso Midence to pay Defendant R & A Harper, LLC $1,060.00 by July 1, 2025. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.