Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV04214, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV04214 Hearing Date: December 11, 2023 Dept: 28
Having reviewed the motions to compel discovery responses and deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2023, Plaintiffs David Hurtado-Segura (“Hurtado-Segura”) and Luis Mejia (“Mejia”) filed this action against Defendants Carmen Fernandez (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for negligence.
On June 28, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On September 25, 2023, Hurtado-Segura filed motions (1) to compel Defendant’s responses to “initial discovery requests (set one)” and for sanctions and (2) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and for sanctions. Also on September 25, 2023, Mejia filed motions (1) to compel Defendant’s responses to “initial discovery requests (set one)” and for sanctions and (2) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on December 11, 2023. Defendant did not file oppositions.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Hurtado-Segura asks the Court to compel Defendant’s response to “initial discovery requests (set one), to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, and to award sanctions.
Mejia asks the Court to compel Defendant’s response to “initial discovery requests (set one), to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, and to award sanctions.
FILING FEES
Hurtado-Segura and Mejia have
each filed motions to compel responses to “initial discovery requests” that
include separate requests to compel responses to (1) requests for production of
documents, (2) special interrogatories, and (3) form interrogatories. Hurtado-Segura and Mejia were required to file
a separate motion for each type of discovery.
Therefore, the Court orders Hurtado-Segura and Mejia to pay the Court two
additional filing fees by January 10, 2024 ($120 each).
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.
“(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.)
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
A. Hurtado-Segura’s motions
On June 6, 2023, Hurtado-Segura served requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission on Defendant. Defendant did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Hurtado-Segura filed these motions.
The Court grants the motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents and orders Defendant to provide verified, code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 10, 2024.
The Court grants the motion to compel responses to the special and form interrogatories and orders Defendant to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the special and form interrogatories without objections by January 10, 2024.
The Court grants the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and deems admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission.
On the motion to compel responses to “initial discovery requests,” Hurtado-Segura requests $1,860.00 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time at a rate of $450 per hour and one $60 filing fee. Counsel spent two hours to prepare the moving papers and anticipated spending one hour to review any opposition and prepare a reply and one hour to appear at the hearing.
The Court awards $680 in sanctions on Hurtado-Segura’s motion to compel responses to “initial discovery requests” based on two hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour plus three filing fees.
On the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, Hurtado-Segura requests $1,860.00 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time at a rate of $450 per hour and one $60 filing fee. Counsel spent two hours to prepare the moving papers and anticipated spending one hour to review any opposition and prepare a reply and one hour to appear at the hearing.
The Court awards $310 in sanctions on Hurtado-Segura’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission based on one hour of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour plus one filing fee.
B. Mejia’s motions
On June 6, 2023, Mejia served requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission on Defendant. Defendant did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Mejia filed these motions.
The Court grants the motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents and orders Defendant to provide verified, code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 10, 2024.
The Court grants the motion to compel responses to the special and form interrogatories and orders Defendant to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the special and form interrogatories without objections by January 10, 2024.
The Court grants the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and deems admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission.
On the motion to compel responses to “initial discovery requests,” Mejia requests $1,860.00 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time at a rate of $450 per hour and one $60 filing fee. Counsel spent two hours to prepare the moving papers and anticipated spending one hour to review any opposition and prepare a reply and one hour to appear at the hearing.
The Court awards $680 in sanctions on Mejia’s motion to compel responses to “initial discovery requests” based on two hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour plus three filing fees.
On the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, Mejia requests $1,860.00 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time at a rate of $450 per hour and one $60 filing fee. Counsel spent two hours to prepare the moving papers and anticipated spending one hour to review any opposition and prepare a reply and one hour to appear at the hearing.
The Court awards $310 in sanctions on Mejia’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission based on one hour of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour plus one filing fee.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Plaintiff David Hurtado-Segura to compel Defendant Carmen Fernandez to respond to the request for production of documents (set one) and orders Defendant Carmen Fernandez to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff David Hurtado-Segura’s request for production of documents and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 10, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Plaintiff David Hurtado-Segura to compel Defendant Carmen Fernandez to respond to form interrogatories (set one) and orders Defendant Carmen Fernandez to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff David Hurtado-Segura's form interrogatories without objections by January 10, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Plaintiff David Hurtado-Segura to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission (set one) served on Defendant Carmen Fernandez. The matters specified in the requests for admission are deemed admitted.
The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions of Plaintiff David Hurtado-Segura and orders Defendant Carmen Fernandez and her counsel to pay Plaintiff David Hurtado-Segura $990 ($680 plus $310) by January 10, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Plaintiff Luis Mejia to compel Defendant Carmen Fernandez to respond to the request for production of documents (set one) and orders Defendant Carmen Fernandez to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Luis Mejia’s request for production of documents and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 10, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Plaintiff Luis Mejia to compel Defendant Carmen Fernandez to respond to special interrogatories (set one) and orders Defendant Carmen Fernandez to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Luis Mejia’s special interrogatories without objections by January 10, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Plaintiff Luis Mejia to compel Defendant Carmen Fernandez to respond to form interrogatories (set one) and orders Defendant Carmen Fernandez to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Luis Mejia’s form interrogatories without objections by January 10, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Plaintiff Luis Mejia to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission (set one) served on Defendant Carmen Fernandez. The matters specified in the requests for admission are deemed admitted.
The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions of Plaintiff Luis Mejia and orders Defendant Carmen Fernandez and her counsel to pay Plaintiff Luis Mejia $990 ($680 plus $310) by January 10, 2024.
The Court orders Plaintiff David Hurtado-Segura to pay the Court $120 in filing fees by January 10, 2024.
The Court orders Plaintiff Luis Mejia to pay the Court $120 in filing fees by January 10, 2024.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of these rulings.