Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV03637, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV03637 Hearing Date: March 12, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 21, 2023, Plaintiffs Danelle Meeks and Preecha Meeks filed this action against Defendants Marcos Eduardo Lopez (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for negligence.
On April 3, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
Trial is currently scheduled for August 20, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to compel each Plaintiff to serve verified code compliant responses, without objections, to demand for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one.
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 April 3, 2023, Defendant served demands for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on each Plaintiff.
Plaintiffs did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Defendant filed these motions. The Court grants the motions as set forth below.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Marcos Eduardo Lopez to compel Plaintiff Danelle Meeks’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Danelle Meeks to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by April 12, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Marcos Eduardo Lopez to compel Plaintiff Preecha Meeks’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Preecha Meeks to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by April 12, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Marcos Eduardo Lopez to compel Plaintiff Danelle Meeks’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Danelle Meeks to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by April 12, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Marcos Eduardo Lopez to compel Plaintiff Preecha Meeks’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Preecha Meeks to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by April 12, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Marcos Eduardo Lopez to compel Plaintiff Danelle Meeks’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Danelle Meeks to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by April 12, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Marcos Eduardo Lopez to compel Plaintiff Preecha Meeks’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Preecha Meeks to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by April 12, 2024.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.