Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV18872, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV18872 Hearing Date: June 14, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff Reginald Dewaine Mannings (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles operating as LA General Medical Center, Allied Universal, and Does 1-10 for premises liability.
On December 27, 2023, Defendant County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued and served as County of Los Angeles operating as LA General Medical Center) (“County”) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-50 for equitable indemnification, equitable contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.
On February 20, 2024, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP (erroneously sued as Allied Universal) filed an answer.
On April 11, 2024, the County 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. The County also requested sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on June 14, 2024. Plaintiff did not file oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 4, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
The County asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one. The County also asks the Court 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
A. Motions to compel
On December 27, 2023, the County served a 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 the County filed these motions.
The Court grants the County’s motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by July 12, 2024.
The Court grants the County’s motions to compel responses to the special and form interrogatories and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special and form interrogatories without objections by July 12, 2024.
B. Sanctions
The County requests sanctions on its motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the County’s request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. 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].) Here, Plaintiff did not make or oppose a motion to compel responses. Therefore, sanctions are not available under these statutes.
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for these motions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) 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, review granted Jan. 23, 2023 with order permitting citation of opinion for its persuasive value and to establish the existence of a conflict in authority that would “allow trial courts to exercise discretion . . . to choose between sides of any such conflict.”)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), 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 above, the Discovery Act does not authorize sanctions for the County’s unopposed motions to compel responses to request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories.
The Court denies the County’s sanctions requests.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant County of Los Angeles’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Reginald Dewaine Mannings to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by July 12, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant County of Los Angeles’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Reginald Dewaine Mannings to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by July 12, 2024.
The Court DENIES Defendant County of Los Angeles’s requests for sanctions.
Moving party is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
Moving party is to file proof of service of the Court’s ruling within five days.