Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV35146, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35146    Hearing Date: December 12, 2023    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff Yolanda Amador (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants 555 Holdings LLC (“555 Holdings LLC”), 555 Holdings Inc., and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability. 

On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form stating that Plaintiff would represent herself in place of her former attorney. 

On July 25, 2023, 555 Holdings LLC filed an answer. 

On October 12, 2023, 555 Holdings LLC filed motions (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (3) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions.  The motions were set to be heard on December 12, 2023. 

On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form stating that new counsel would represent her in the case. 

On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the discovery motions.  555 Holdings LLC has not filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for May 3, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

555 Holdings LLC requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections, to its demand for inspection and production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories, and award sanctions. 

Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motions as moot and deny the requests for sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD 

        “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.      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 

On July 25, 2023, 555 Holdings LLC served a demand for inspection and production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories on Plaintiff.  Responses were due August 28, 2023.  555 Holdings LLC did not receive timely discovery responses and had not received responses by the time it filed these motions on October 12, 2023. 

On October 27, 2023, after retaining counsel, Plaintiff served verified discovery responses.  Plaintiff argues that, as a result, 555 Holdings LLC’s motions are moot and the Court should deny the requests for sanctions. 

The statutes at issue (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300) do not support Plaintiff’s assertion that the motions are moot.  The statutes provide that the failure to serve timely discovery responses waives any objections to the discovery requests.  A party may file a motion asking the Court to relieve the party from the waiver, but Plaintiff has not filed any motions seeking relief from waiver. Therefore, because it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not serve timely discovery responses, the Court is required to grant the motions. 

The Court is also required to impose sanctions against a party who fails to serve timely discovery responses 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. 

Although Plaintiff eventually retained counsel and served discovery responses, she took these steps only after 555 Holdings LLC filed these motions to compel.  Under these circumstances, it is not unjust to impose sanctions. 

555 Holdings LLC requests $652.50 in sanctions for each motion, based on 4.5 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $145.00 per hour.   Counsel spent 0.5 hours in informal resolution efforts, two hours to draft each motion, and anticipated spending two hours to attend the hearing.

The motions are substantially similar and will be heard together.  The Court awards sanctions of $580 for all three motions based on four hours of attorney’s work. 

CONCLUSION 

          The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant 555 Holdings LLC to compel Plaintiff Yolanda Amador to respond to the demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Yolanda Amador to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Defendant 555 Holdings LLC’s demand for inspection and production of documents and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 11, 2024. 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant 555 Holdings LLC to compel Plaintiff Yolanda Amador to respond to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Yolanda Amador to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Defendant 555 Holdings LLC’s special interrogatories without objections by January 11, 2024. 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant 555 Holdings LLC to compel Plaintiff Yolanda Amador to respond to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Yolanda Amador to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Defendant 555 Holdings LLC’s form interrogatories without objections by January 11, 2024. 

The Court GRANTS the request of Defendant 555 Holdings LLC for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Yolanda Amador to pay Defendant 555 Holdings LLC $580 by January 11, 2024. 

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.