Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV03122, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03122    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff Hermenejildo Banuelos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Unlimited Security Specialists, Inc. (“Specialists”), the Universal Church (“Church”), and Does 1-10 for battery and negligence. 

On April 12, 2023, Church and Specialists filed answers.  On April 21, 2023, Specialists filed a first amended answer. 

On January 9, 2024, Church filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to (1) request for production of documents, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) form interrogatories, set one.  Church also requested sanctions.  The motions were set for hearing on February 22, 2024. 

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a late opposition to the motions. 

Trial is currently scheduled for August 13, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Church asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to (1) request for production of documents, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) form interrogatories, set one.  Church also asks the Court to award sanctions. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motions. 

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.)   

DISCUSSION 

On June 22, 2023, Church served (1) request for production of documents, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Church filed these motions. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a declaration stating that Church’s discovery “[has] now been answered. [Plaintiff's] responses were emailed to [Church’s] attorney on February 15, 2024.”  (Opposition p. 2.)  Plaintiff’s counsel did not submit copies of the discovery responses for the Court’s review. 

At the February 22, 2024 hearing, Church’s counsel stated that he received Plaintiff’s discovery responses.  Church’s counsel found the responses inadequate but confirmed that the responses were verified and did not include objections. 

The Court concludes that the motions to compel are moot.  If Plaintiff’s discovery responses are deficient, Church may file one or more motions to compel further responses and schedule an informal discovery conference with the Court.  

In addition, although Plaintiff’s lengthy delay in serving discovery responses made it necessary for Church to file these motions, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 do not appear to authorize the Court to grant Church’s requests for sanctions.  The statutes authorize a sanctions award against a party, person, or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Plaintiff’s late-filed opposition was successful.  Therefore, the Court denies Church’s sanctions requests. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES as moot Defendant The Universal Church’s motion to compel Plaintiff Hermenejildo Banuelos’s responses to request for production of documents, set one. 

The Court DENIES as moot Defendant The Universal Church’s motion to compel Plaintiff Hermenejildo Banuelos’s responses to special interrogatories, set one.

The Court DENIES as moot Defendant The Universal Church’s motion to compel Plaintiff Hermenejildo Banuelos’s responses to form interrogatories, set one. 

The Court DENIES Defendant The Universal Church’s requests for sanctions. 

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.