Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV25750, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV25750 Hearing Date: April 10, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff Ok Hee Yang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”), Bernard Allen Clarence (“Clarence”), Santiago Mendez Casiano (“Casiano”), and Does 1-50 for automobile negligence in violation of Government Code sections 815.2, 815.4, and 820 and Vehicle Code sections 17001, 17002, and 17150.
On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
On March 22, 2024, Metro filed an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.
On September 9, 2024, Casiano filed an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants County, Metro, Clarence, and Roes 1-100 for indemnification and apportionment of fault. On October 8, 2024, Metro filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On November 18, 2024, the Court granted Metro’s motion for terminating sanctions and dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Metro.
On January 29, 2025, Casiano filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (3) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on April 10, 2025. Plaintiff did not file oppositions.
Trial is scheduled for October 6, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Casiano
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, and to impose sanctions on Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel.
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.)
On September 9, 2024, Casiano served request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Casiano filed these motions. Casiano asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and to impose sanctions on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.
The Court grants the motions and orders Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses to the request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by May 12, 2025.
Casiano asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff. 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 observed: “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 [Civil Discovery] 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.)
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Santiago Mendez Casiano’s motion to compel Plaintiff Ok Hee Yang’s responses to request for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Ok Hee Yang 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 May 12, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Santiago Mendez Casiano’s motion to compel Plaintiff Ok Hee Yang’s responses to special interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Ok Hee Yang to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by May 12, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Santiago Mendez Casiano’s motion to compel Plaintiff Ok Hee Yang’s responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Ok Hee Yang to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by May 12, 2025.
The Court DENIES Defendant Santiago Mendez Casiano’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.