Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV16574, Date: 2024-12-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV16574 Hearing Date: December 31, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff Shivam Patwari (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Dean Guaraldi (“Dean Guaraldi”), Jared Guaraldi (“Jared Guaraldi”), and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle negligence, negligence per se - Vehicle Code, § 22350, basic speed law, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent entrustment.
On June 11, 2024, Jared Guaraldi filed an answer.
On November 15, 2024, Jared Guaraldi and Dean Guaraldi filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to demand for inspection, set two, and for sanctions and (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and for sanctions. However, Dean Guaraldi has not filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint. Therefore, the Court will treat the motions as having been filed by Jared Guaraldi ("Defendant"). The motions were set for hearing on December 13, 2024. The Court continued the motions to December 31, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed oppositions.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set two, and special interrogatories, set two, and to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
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
The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set two, and orders Plaintiff to serve code-compliant verified responses without objections by January 30, 2025 and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 30, 2025.
The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and orders Plaintiff to serve code-compliant verified responses to the special interrogatories without objections by January 30, 2025.
Defendant asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff on both motions. 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].)
Plaintiff 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 for these motions. In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46 (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 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, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.)
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 this issue, the Court will not invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. (See PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.)
Defendant also cites California Rule of Court, rule 3.1348(a), which provides: “The court
may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a
motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed .
. . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
1348(a).) Because rule 3.1348(a)
authorizes sanctions “under the Discovery Act,” the Court may not award
sanctions under rule 3.1348(a) except as the Discovery Act authorizes. As explained, the Discovery Act does not
authorize sanctions for Defendants’ unopposed motion to compel responses to
requests for production and interrogatories.
Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s request for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Jared Guaraldi's motion to compel Plaintiff Shivam Patwari’s responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set two. The Court orders Plaintiff Shivam Patwari to serve code-compliant verified responses without objections by January 30, 2025 and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 30, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Jared Guaraldi's motion to compel Plaintiff Shivam Patwari’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and orders Plaintiff Shivam Patwari to serve code-compliant verified responses to the special interrogatories without objections by January 30, 2025.
The Court DENIES Defendant Jared Guaraldi'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.