Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV36247, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV36247 Hearing Date: July 20, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers,
the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff Araceli Morales Villafranca (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendants Kevin Bladimir Perez Canizalez, Trejo Dimas, and Bersi A. Flores Avila for motor vehicle negligence.
On January 11, 2023, Defendants filed an answer.
On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, and form interrogatories, set one. Defendants have not filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 15, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff
requests that the Court grant her motion to compel Defendants to respond to
form interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one. Plaintiff also requests $2,186.65 in
sanctions.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)
“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
“Within 30 days after service
of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall
serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on
motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response,
or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for
response.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260.)
“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.
(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:
“(a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery.
“(b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures.
“(c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.
“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.
“(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.
“(f) Making an evasive response to discovery.
“(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.
“(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.
“(i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.”
(Code Civ. Proc., §2023.010,
subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
A. Discovery motions
1. Request for production of documents
On February 13, 2023, Plaintiff served a request for production of documents, set one, on Defendants.
On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff
served a meet and confer letter on Defendants.
Plaintiff’s counsel had not received any response to the request for production of documents by April 14, 2023, when counsel filed this motion.
The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents and orders Defendants Kevin Bladimir Perez Canizalez, Trejo Dimas and Bersi A. Flores to provide verified responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by August 19, 2023.
2. Form interrogatories
On February 13, 2023, Plaintiff served form interrogatories, set one, on Defendants.
On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter on Defendants.
Plaintiff’s counsel had not received any response to the form interrogatories by April 14, 2023, when counsel filed this motion.
The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to the form interrogatories and orders Defendants Kevin Bladimir Perez Canizalez, Trejo Dimas and Bersi A. Flores to provide verified responses to the interrogatories without objections by August 19, 2023.
B. Sanctions
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions totaling $2,186.65.
The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $873.30 calculated as follows:
Plaintiff’s request for $2,186.65 in sanctions is based on 5 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $425.00 per hour, and 1 $61.65 filling fee. (Plaintiff should have filed two motions, one for each category of discovery. Plaintiff is ordered to pay a second filing fee to the Court.) Counsel spent 4 hours drafting the motion and anticipates spending 1 hour to attend the hearing on the motion.
The Court award sanctions of $873.30, based on 3 hours of attorney’s work at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and 2 $61.65 filling fees.
Sanctions total $873.30 and are payable by Defendants Kevin Bladimir Perez Canizalez, Trejo Dimas and Bersi A. Flores and their counsel to Plaintiff by August 19, 2023.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Araceli Morales Villafranca’s motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents, set one, and orders Defendants Kevin Bladimir Perez Canizalez, Trejo Dimas and Bersi A. Flores to provide verified responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by August 19, 2023.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Araceli Morales Villafranca’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Defendants Kevin Bladimir Perez Canizalez, Trejo Dimas and Bersi A. Flores to provide verified responses to the form interrogatories without objections by August 19, 2023.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Araceli Morales Villafranca's request for sanctions and orders Defendants Kevin Bladimir Perez Canizalez, Trejo Dimas and Bersi A. Flores and their counsel to pay $873.30 in sanctions to Plaintiff by August 19, 2023.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay one additional $61.65 filling fee to the Court.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.