Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV38880, Date: 2024-08-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV38880 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers and opposing declaration, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff Brandon Barca (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Cleanstreet, LLC, Agustin Martinez Meza, and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On July 5, 2023, Defendants Cleanstreet, LLC (“Cleanstreet”) and Agustin Martinez Meza, aka Agustin Meza Martinez, filed an answer.
On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed (1) a motion to compel Meza’s response to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Meza’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (3) a motion to compel Meza’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (4) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on July 26, 2024. The Court continued the hearing to July 31, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel then rescheduled the hearing for August 19, 2024.
On July 15, 2024, Meza’s counsel filed a declaration stating that counsel has not been able to contact Meza, Meza is no longer employed by Cleanstreet, and Meza may be in Mexico.
Trial is currently scheduled for December 16, 2024.
PARTIES' REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Meza’s responses, without objections, to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Meza.
Meza’s counsel asks the Court to consider counsel’s inability to contact Meza.
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
On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff served request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set one, and requests for admission, set one, on Meza. Meza did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Plaintiff filed these motions.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Meza’s
responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, and
orders Meza to provide verified, code-compliant
responses to the requests for production of documents without objections and to
produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things
requested without objections by September 18, 2024.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel Meza’s responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and orders Meza to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the special and form interrogatories without objections by September 18, 2024.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in Plaintiff’s requests for admission, set one, served on Meza. The Court deems the matters admitted.
Plaintiff requests $9,600.00 in sanctions ($2,400.00 for each motion) based on eight hours of attorney time at $300.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee for each motion. For each motion, Plaintiff’s counsel spent four hours meeting and conferring, drafting and finalizing the motion, including legal research, preparing the supporting declaration, and assembling exhibits. For each motion, Plaintiff’s counsel anticipates spending an additional four hours reviewing and analyzing Meza’s opposition, preparing and filing a reply, and preparing for and appearing at the hearing.
The Court awards sanctions of $1,740.00 against Meza based
on six hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and four
filing fees.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Brandon Barca’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Defendant Agustin Martinez Meza, aka Agustin Meza Martinez, to serve verified, code-compliant responses to the requests for production of documents without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by September 18, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Brandon Barca’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Defendant Agustin Martinez Meza, aka Agustin Meza Martinez, to serve verified, code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by September 18, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Brandon Barca’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. The Court deems the matters admitted.
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff Brandon Barca’s requests for sanctions and orders Defendant Agustin Martinez Meza, aka Agustin Meza Martinez, to pay Plaintiff Brandon Barca $1,740.00 by September 18, 2024.
Moving party is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
Moving party is to file proof of service of the Court’s ruling within five days.