Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV39505, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV39505 Hearing Date: August 11, 2023 Dept: 30
BENITA CHAN CAN, AN INDIVIDUAL vs CASAUNDRA MRAZECK, AN INDIVIDUAL
Re: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Ruling:
The
Court has read and considered the moving and opposing pleadings and reviewed
the Court file. The Court issues the
following tentative ruling:
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions is granted. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is granted
in the amount of $1060. Moving party to
give notice.
BACKGROUND
This
is a vehicular accident personal injury tort complaint (Complaint). Plaintiff Chan
through counsel propounded a request for admission on February 2, 2023 (Mikaelian Decl ¶ 4) Defendant Mrazeck served responses
on March 8, 2023. (Ibid. at ¶ 7) On March 10th, Counsel for Chan mailed
Counsel for Mrazeck a letter in an attempt to meet and confer. (Ibid. at ¶ 10) Then on March 15th,
Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed and called Defendant’s Counsel in a further effort
to meet and confer. Defense Counsel did
not respond to the communications prior to the filing of the instant motion to
compel.
On April
24, 2023, Plaintiff Chan filed its Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request
for Admissions and Request for Sanctions. On June 9, 2023, the IDC was scheduled with
proof of service to Defendant. Plaintiff
appeared, but Defense Counsel failed to appear.
On July 31, 2023, Defendant Mrazeck filed an opposition to the motion. On
August 4, 2023, Plaintiff replies to the opposition.
Procedural
Requirements
1.
Informal Discovery Conference
Per the Eighth Amended Standing
Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10,
2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to
Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged
in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).
PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses
to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the
scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.”
Here, the Court finds that Defendant
has not complied with the Standing Order in attending an IDC before the hearing
on the motion. Defendant was served with
the Informal Discovery Conference form with the date of the IDC and made no
attempt to attend the hearing or give a reason for her absence.
2. Timeliness of Motion
A notice of motion to compel
further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the responses,
or any supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date to which
the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.290(c).) Failure
to file such a motion within this time-period constitutes a waiver of any right
to compel further responses to interrogatories. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff filed the
motion on the dates set forth above. Defendant has not objected to the
timeliness of the motion.
Meet
and Confer
“A motion to compel must be
accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure
section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300,
subd. (b)(1).) “A meet and confer
declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt at an
informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
“The Discovery Act requires that,
prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he
or she has made a serious attempt to obtain an informal resolution of each
issue. This rule is designed to encourage the parties to work out their
differences informally so as to avoid the necessity of a formal order. . . .
This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the
unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of
informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61
Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434-1435 [cleaned up].)
To comply, “a reasonable and good-faith attempt at informal resolution
entails something more than bickering with [opposing counsel]. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt
to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Id. at p. 1439; see also Clement
v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 [to satisfy the attempt at
informal resolution required in section 2016.040 opposing parties must do more
than try to persuade each other of their errors].) In short, the Discovery Act “requires that
there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Townsend v. Superior Court, supra, 61
Cal.App.4th at p. 1438.)
To that end, trial courts are
entrusted with discretion and judgment to determine the necessary effort
required to satisfy the requirement of an informal resolution. (Obregon v.
Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 433.) In determining if parties have satisfied
section 2016.040, judges may consider “the history of the litigation, the
nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type
and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar
factors can be relevant.” (Id. at pp. 431-432 [holding that the trial
court was correct in determining that sending a letter with oppositions was an
insufficient attempt at an informal resolution].) In sum, meet and confer efforts should go
beyond counsel merely sending letters to each other stating each party’s
respective positions.
Here, as set forth in the
Declaration of Attorney Mikaelian (“Mikaelian”), counsel for Plaintiff states
in pertinent part as follows:
On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed a
meet and confer letter addressing Defendant’s responses to the RFAs. … On March
28, 2023, Plaintiff’s Counsel made several calls and informed Defendant through
E-Mail communication on Defense Counsel’s failure to respond to the meet and
confer letter sent on March 15, 2023.
(Mikaelian Decl. ¶ 10 -11.)
Based upon the representation of Counsel,
the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Counsel made a reasonable and good faith
attempt at an informal resolution of the issues presented in the motion. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff
fulfilled its minimum obligations pursuant to CCP § 2016.040.
3. Separate Statement
California Rules of Court, rule
3.1345 requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a
separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement
of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is
warranted.
Here, Plaintiff has filed a separate
statement related to the motion which complies with Rule 3.1345.
1.
DISCOVERY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES
“The purpose of the discovery rules
is to enhance the truth-seeking function of the litigation process and
eliminate trial strategies that focus on gamesmanship and surprise. In other words, the discovery process is
designed to make a trial less a game of blindman's bluff and more a fair
contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable
extent.” (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 389
[cleaned up].)
Where a party objects, or responds
inadequately, to discovery requests, a motion lies to compel further responses,
and that party has the burden to justify the objections or inadequate
responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior
Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)
[motion to compel further responses lies “[o]n receipt of a response to a
demand for inspection”].) “A trial
court's determination of a motion to compel discovery is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. However, when the facts
asserted in support of and in opposition to the motion are in conflict, the
trial court's factual findings will be upheld if they are supported by
substantial evidence.” (Costco Wholesale
Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 [cleaned up].)
Here, the Court finds that Defendant
has not made an adequate showing that her responses to Request for Admissions
24, 25, 29, 30, 31 and 32 are complete and code compliant. Further, the Court
overrules Defendant’s objections as to each of these requests for admissions.
Sanctions
A trial court may sanction a party for engaging in the misuse of
discovery, which include failure to
respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive
response to discovery; making, without substantial justification, an
unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully
and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit
discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)
In addition, Code of Civil Procedure
section 2033.290(d) provides: “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 further
response, 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.”
Here, Plaintiff seeks
monetary sanctions in connection with the motion based upon Defendant’s failure
to provide complete, substantive responses to the subject discovery
request. As a result of Defendant’s
failure to provide adequate responses to the Request for Admissions, Set One,
Plaintiff Benita Chan Can seeks the following reasonable costs: Four hours of
attorney fees at the attorney rate of $250.00 per hour, and a motion filing fee
$60.00. Court awards sanctions to
Plaintiff for $1,060.00.
CONCLUSION
The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Request for Admissions. Defendant is
ordered to serve further verified and code compliant responses to 24-25 and
29-32, within 30 days of issuance of this Order. Sanctions in the amount of
$1060 is ordered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and its Counsel,
jointly and severally, and to be paid within 30 days.