Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV06720, Date: 2024-08-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06720 Hearing Date: August 28, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff Amanda Alcala filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation, Doe 1, and Does 2-50 for negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, and negligence by common carrier under Civil Code section 2100.
On July 25, 2023, the clerk entered Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation’s default.
On January 18, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to vacate the default.
On January 22, 2024, Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) filed an answer.
On April 8, 2024, the Court found that this case (23STCV06720) and case number 22STCV14136 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse.
On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Yasir Jelks as Doe 1.
B. These motions
On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Metro’s further responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one. Plaintiff also asked the Court to award sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on August 12 and 13, 2024. On July 30, 2024, Metro filed oppositions and requests for sanctions. On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed replies. The Court continued the hearings to August 28, 2024.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Informal Discovery Conference
The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.”
The parties participated in an IDC on June 6, 2024.
B. Timeliness of motions
A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the verified responses, or any supplemental verified responses, or on or before any later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c) [demand for inspection]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c) [interrogatories].) Failure to file a motion by this deadline constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses.
Metro does not dispute the timeliness of Plaintiff’s motions.
C. Meet and confer
A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or interrogatories must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd (b)(2) [demand for inspection]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1) [interrogatories].) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
Metro disputes the adequacy of Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts. The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement.
D. Separate statement
With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.
Plaintiff has filed separate statements.
APPLICABLE LAW
A. Demand for inspection
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides in part:
“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
“(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
“(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:
“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.
“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1031.310, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).)
B. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in part:
“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.
“(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
“(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
“(b) (1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.
“(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 further 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., § 2030.300, subds. (a), (b), (c), (d).)
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Metro’s further responses to request for production of documents, set one
Served:
February 23, 2024
Responses: April 15, 2024
Further responses to #4, 10, 11, 23 July 29, 2024
Motion filed: June 3, 2024
In addition, Metro has not carried its burden of establishing the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion of the privacy rights it asserts. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:294, p. 8C-98.) To the extent that responsive documents include Doe 1’s employment records, the Court has weighed Plaintiff’s right to discover relevant facts against Doe 1’s privacy interests and concludes that the records are discoverable.
Denied: 4, 5, 10, 11, 23, 30, 31
B. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Metro’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one
Metro has not carried its burden of establishing the preliminary facts that are essential to its claims of attorney-client privilege and work product protection. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:192, p. 8C-61.)
In addition, Metro has not carried its burden of establishing the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion of the privacy rights it asserts. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:294, p. 8C-98.)
Served: February 23, 2024
Responses: April 15, 2024
Further responses to #1, 2, 7, 12, 17 July 29, 2024
Motion filed: June 3, 2024
Granted: 3, 10, 11, 15 (limited to one year before the accident)
Denied: 1, 2, 7, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 22
C. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Metro’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one
Metro has not carried its burden of establishing the preliminary facts that are essential to its claims of attorney-client privilege and work product protection. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:192, p. 8C-61.)
In addition, Metro has not carried its burden of establishing the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion of the privacy rights it asserts. (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:294, p. 8C-98.)
Served:
Feb. 23, 2024 Responses: April 15, 2024
Further
responses to #12.1, 12.3, 15.1, 16.9, 16.10,
20.8 July 29, 2024
Motion
filed: June 3, 2024
D. Sanctions
The Court declines to award sanctions on Plaintiff's motions to compel further responses to requests for production of documents and special interrogatories.
The Court grants Metro’s request for sanctions on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories. Metro requests $2,325.00 in sanctions based on 9.3 hours of attorney time at a rate of $250.00 per hour. Counsel spent 5.5 hours on meet and confer efforts and 1.8 hour reviewing the moving papers and preparing the opposition. Counsel anticipated spending 2 hours to review the reply and appear at the hearing.
The Court awards Metro $750.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff Amanda Alcala’s motion to compel Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide further responses to request for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (1) to provide further verified, code-compliant responses to request for production of document numbers 2, 3, 6 (limited to two years before the accident), 9, 12 (limited to registration effective the date of the accident), 17, 18, 28, and 29 and (2) to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested by September 27, 2024. In all other respects, the Court DENIES the motion.
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff Amanda Alcala’s motion to compel Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide further responses to special interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide further verified, code-compliant responses to special interrogatory numbers 3, 10, 11, and 15 (limited to one year before the accident) by September 27, 2024. In all other respects, the Court DENIES the motion.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Amanda Alcala’s motion to compel Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide further responses to form interrogatories, set one.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s request for sanctions based on Plaintiff Amanda Alcala’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Amanda Alcala and her counsel to pay Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority $750.00 by September 27, 2024. In all other respects, the Court DENIES Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’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.