Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV03962, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV03962 Hearing Date: September 18, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2023, Plaintiffs Pedro Javier Anguilarc Astro (sic) and KLNG, Inc. dba American Towing filed this action against Defendants Dio Angelica Rivera (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On December 11, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On August 21, 2024, Defendant filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, and (2) a motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on September 18, 2024. Plaintiffs have not filed oppositions.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and Plaintiffs’ responses to form interrogatories, set one. Defendant also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiffs and their counsel.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Demand for inspection
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides in part:
“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. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a), (b), (c).)
B. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides in part:
“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. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
DISCUSSION
A. Motions to compel
On January 2, 2024, Defendant served a demand for production and inspection of documents and tangible things, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiffs. On March 19, 2024, Defendant served corrected demands for production and inspection of documents and tangible things, set one, and form interrogatories, set one (collectively, “discovery”), on Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs did not provide timely responses to the discovery and had not provided responses by the time Defendant filed these motions.
The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendant’s demand for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiffs to serve verified code-compliant responses to the demand for production of documents, without objections, and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by October 17, 2024.
The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiffs to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by October 17, 2024.
B. Sanctions
Defendant asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiffs on each motion to compel. Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand for inspection].)
Plaintiffs did not make or oppose a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or a demand for inspection. Therefore, sanctions are not available under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award on Defendant’s motions. In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (Aug. 23, 2024) __ Cal.5th __ [2024 WL 3894042, 2024 DJDAR 8056, slip opn. pp. 1-42] (PwC), the Supreme Court held: “It is already well-established that a court may not rely on [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2023.030 to override the limitations prescribed by any other applicable sanctions provision in the [Civil Discovery] Act. A court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision. And where it invokes that authority, it is constrained by the long-settled rules generally governing the imposition of discovery sanctions under the Act.” (PwC, supra, __ Cal.5th __ [2024 WL 3894042 at *18, 2024 DJDAR at p. 8066, slip opn. at p. 40].)
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), and 2031.300, subdivision (c), limit the Court’s authority to impose sanctions when (as here) the non-moving party does not oppose a successful motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands. Because these statutes address the issue, the Court may not invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. (See PwC, supra, __ Cal.5th __ [2024 WL 3894042 at *18, 2024 DJDAR at p. 8066, slip opn. at p. 40].)
The Court denies Defendant’s sanctions requests.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Dio Angelica Rivera’s motion to compel Plaintiff Pedro Javier Anguilarc Astro’s responses to demand for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Pedro Javier Anguilarc Astro to serve verified code-compliant responses to the demand for production of documents, without objections, and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by October 17, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Dio Angelica Rivera’s motion to compel Plaintiff Pedro Javier Anguilarc Astro’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Pedro Javier Anguilarc Astro to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by October 17, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Dio Angelica Rivera’s motion to compel Plaintiff KLNG, Inc. dba American Towing’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff KLNG, Inc. dba American Towing to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by October 17, 2024.
The Court DENIES Defendant Dio Angelica Rivera’s requests for sanctions.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.