Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV14492, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV14492 Hearing Date: March 4, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff Justin Ybarra (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Greystar California, Inc. (“Greystar”), SBDTLA 1, LLC, SBDTLA 2, LLC, SBDTLA 3, LLC, SBDTLA 4, LLC, Defense International Corporation, Inc., and Does 1-50 for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligence.
On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Greystar’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The Court continued the hearing on the motions from January 16, 2024 to March 4, 2024. On January 3, 2024, Greystar filed oppositions. On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is scheduled for December 18, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Greystar to provide verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and to award sanctions.
Greystar asks the Court to deny the motions.
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 October 16, 2023, Plaintiff served request for production of documents, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Greystar.
Greystar did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Plaintiff filed these motions. Plaintiff now moves to compel verified code-compliant responses without objections.
Greystar argues that discovery is premature because
the Court purportedly
“sustained Greystar’s demurrer as to all of Plaintiff’s causes of action” and
Greystar did not know if Plaintiff would file an amended complaint. In fact, on December 6, 2023, the Court
overruled Greystar’s demurrer but struck Plaintiff’s punitive damage claim with
leave to amend.
Greystar also argues that it should not be required to
respond to discovery while the case is in the pleading stage. Greystar is mistaken. (See L. Edmon and C. Karnow, Cal. Practice
Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 8:58, p. 8B-13 (Cal.
Practice Guide) [“The right to discovery generally does not depend on the
status of the pleadings. I.e., the case
need not be ‘at issue.’”]; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co.
(1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436, fn. 3 [trial court properly rejected
defendant’s prematurity argument because pleading deficiencies generally do not
affect either party’s right to conduct discovery].) “Thus, for example, discovery may continue after
a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend, although no amended
complaint has yet been filed – i.e., no valid complaint need be on file.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:59,
p. 8B-13, citing Budget Finance Plan v. Superior Court (McDowell) (1973)
34 Cal.App.3d 794, 797.)
Plaintiff was permitted to propound interrogatories and serve a request for production of documents on Greystar “without leave of court at any time that is 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, [Greystar], whichever occurs first.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.020, subd. (b), 2031.020, subd. (b).) Greystar filed a demurrer on September 21, 2023 and a motion to strike on September 27, 2023. Plaintiff served his request for production of documents and form interrogatories more than ten days later.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Greystar’s responses to the request for production of documents and orders Greystar to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by April 3, 2024.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Greystar’s responses to the form interrogatories and orders Greystar to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by April 3, 2024.
Plaintiff requests $2,536.65 in sanctions for each motion based on 4.5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $550.00 per hour and one $61.65 filing fee. Counsel spent 2.5 hours drafting each motion and anticipated spending one hour reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply and one hour attending the hearing.
The Court awards $1,123.30 in sanctions for both motions based on 4 hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and 2 filing fees.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Justin Ybarra’s motion to compel Defendant Greystar California, Inc.’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Defendant Greystar California, Inc. to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by April 3, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Justin Ybarra’s request for sanctions and orders Defendant Greystar California, Inc. and its counsel to pay Plaintiff Justin Ybarra $1,123.30 by April 3, 2024.
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.