Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV18213, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV18213 Hearing Date: December 11, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff Aislinn Olivia Cordova (“Cordova”) filed this action against Defendants Osvin David Rodriguez Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), Mari De Rodriguez Hernandez, and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort.
On October 27, 2023, Defendant Mariela De Rodriguez Hernandez, erroneously sued and served as Mari De Rodriguez Hernandez (“Hernandez”), filed an answer.
On November 14, 2023, Gonzalez filed an answer.
On January 26, 2024, Gonzalez and Hernandez filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Cordova for negligence.
On June 20, 2024, Cordova filed an answer to the cross-complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Gonzalez and Roes 1-25 for comparative indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. On August 20, 2024, Gonzalez filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On September 26, 2024, Hernandez filed a notice of settlement stating that Hernandez and Gonzalez had reached a settlement with Cordova on Cordova’s complaint.
On October 7, 2024, Cordova filed (1) a motion to compel Gonzalez’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, (2) a motion to compel Gonzalez’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and (3) a motion to compel Gonzalez’s responses to form interrogatories, set one. The motions were set for hearing on December 11, 2024. Gonzalez did not file oppositions.
On October 25, 2024, the Court found that the settlement between Defendant Osvin David Rodriguez Gonzalez and Defendant Mari De Rodriguez Hernandez and Plaintiff Aislinn Olivia Cordova was in good faith.
On December 3, 2024, the Court dismissed Cordova’s complaint with prejudice at Cordova’s request.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 29, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Cordova asks the Court to compel Gonzalez’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one.
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.)
DISCUSSION
On August 13, 2024, Cordova served request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Gonzalez. Gonzalez did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Cordova filed these motions.
The Court grants Cordova’s motion to compel Gonzalez’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Gonzalez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the request for production of documents without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 10, 2025.
The Court grants Cordova’s motion to compel Gonzalez’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Gonzalez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by January 10, 2025.
The Court grants Cordova’s motion to compel Gonzalez’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Gonzalez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by January 10, 2025.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant Aislinn Olivia Cordova’s motion to compel Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant Osvin David Rodriguez Gonzalez’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant Osvin David Rodriguez Gonzalez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the request for production of documents without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 10, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant Aislinn Olivia Cordova’s motion to compel Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant Osvin David Rodriguez Gonzalez’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant Osvin David Rodriguez Gonzalez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by January 10, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant Aislinn Olivia Cordova’s motion to compel Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant Osvin David Rodriguez Gonzalez’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant Osvin David Rodriguez Gonzalez to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by January 10, 2025.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of these rulings.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.