Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV12201, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV12201 Hearing Date: March 29, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff John Dunton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in the Ventura County Superior Court against Defendants Robert Romo (“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and declaratory relief.
On May 31, 2023, the court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to transfer the case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
On July 20, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On November 2, 2023, Defendant 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. Defendant also requested sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on February 26, 2024. The Court continued the hearings to March 29, 2024. Plaintiff did not file oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 15, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and to pay Defendant monetary sanctions.
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 September 7, 2023, Defendant served request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Defendant filed these motions.
The Court grants the motions to compel.
Defendant requests $825.00 in sanctions for each motion. However, Defendant has not identified a statutory basis for sanctions. Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, sanctions are available against parties, persons, and attorneys who unsuccessfully make or oppose a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or requests for production. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand for inspection].) Plaintiff has not made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production.
Defendant also relies on the statutory definition of misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2023.010.) However, “[Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 is] ‘definitional’ and monetary sanctions may not be imposed based solely on [the statute]. Monetary sanctions may be imposed only if authorized by some other provision of the Discovery Act.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 8:1900, p. 8M-2; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 [court may impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or other provision of this title”]; City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 498-504.)
The Court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Robert Romo’s motion to compel Plaintiff John Dunton’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff John Dunton to serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, to the special interrogatories by April 29, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Robert Romo’s motion to compel Plaintiff John Dunton’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff John Dunton to serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, to the form interrogatories by April 29, 2024.
The Court DENIES Defendant Robert Romo’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.