Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV36892, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV36892 Hearing Date: December 21, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff Victoria Carbone (“Carbone”) filed this action against Defendants Juan Gonzalez Serrano (“Serrano”) and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On February 7, 2023, Serrano filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Carbone, LAD-P, LLC dba Porsche Downtown LA (“Porsche”), and Roes 1-25 for indemnity, declaratory relief, contribution, and apportionment of negligence. On March 8, 2023, Carbone and Porsche filed an answer.
On March 28, 2023, Carbone amended the complaint to include Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) as Doe 1. On June 23, 2023, Lyft filed an answer.
On September 29, 2023, the Court found that this case (22STCV36892) and case number 22STCV21671 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV21671 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On November 13, 2023, Serrano filed motions (1) to compel Carbone’s verified responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) to compel Carbone’s verified responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (3) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set to be heard on December 21, 2023. Carbone did not file oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 21, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Serrano
requests that the Court (1) compel Carbone to serve verified responses to Serrano’s
request for production of documents and special interrogatories, (2) deem admitted
matters specified in requests for admission, and (3) award sanctions.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
“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. Requests for admission
“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.
“(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, the following:
* * *
“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
The Court grants the motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents, set one, and orders Carbone to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 23, 2024.
The Court grants the motion to compel responses to the special interrogatories, set one, and orders Carbone to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by January 23, 2024.
The Court grants the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and deems admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission.
Serrano requests $461.65 in sanctions for each motion based on two hours of attorney’s time at a rate of $200.00 per hour and one $61.65 filing fee. The motions are substantially similar, they are unopposed, and they will be heard together. The Court awards sanctions of $984.95 for all three motions based on four hours of attorney’s work and three $61.65 filing fees.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Juan Gonzalez Serrano to compel Plaintiff Victoria Carbone to respond to the request for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Victoria Carbone to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 23, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Juan Gonzalez Serrano to compel Plaintiff Victoria Carbone to respond to special interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Victoria Carbone to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by January 23, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the request of Defendant Juan Gonzalez Serrano for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Victoria Carbone and her counsel to pay Defendant Juan Gonzalez Serrano $984.95 by January 23, 2024..
Moving party is ordered to give notice of these rulings.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.