Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: SC127259, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: SC127259 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Dutton, et al., v. Marinescu, et al.
CASE NO.: SC127259
MOTION: Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses
HEARING DATE: 9/8/2022
Legal Standard
Where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 2031.010 inspection demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required.
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.)
Analysis
As to the interrogatories, on June 4, 2022, the Duttons served the “Interrogatories to Judgment Debtor Rodica Marinescu” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.030. (Staub Decl., ¶¶ 12-14, Ex. 1.) Marinescu did not initially respond to the discovery. (Id., ¶ 15.)
In opposition, Marinescu objects to service of the underlying discovery. However, Marinescu simply contends that the regular mail service was invalid since she unilaterally declared that she could only be served via electronic service. This position is without legal authority. Marinescu proffers her verified responses to the interrogatories. (See Attachment to Marinescu Decl.) These responses are in substantial compliance with sections 2030.210-2030.240. In reply, the Duttons contend that the responses are evasive and withholds certain critical information. While that appears to be true, this does not render the responses not in “substantial” compliance. The motion would still be substantively moot. If the Duttons wish to compel a further response, then a noticed motion will be necessary. That said, sanctions are not moot.
As to the inspection demands, on June 4, 2022, the Duttons served the “Demand for Production of Document to Judgment Debtor Rodica Marinescu” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.030. (Staub Decl., ¶¶ 12-14, Ex. 1.) Marinescu failed to respond to the discovery, despite being obligated to respond by July 11, 2022. While unnecessary, counsel also provides for good cause/relevancy of the sought discovery. (Id., ¶¶ 16-22.) Given the failure to respond, the motion to compel is GRANTED. Further responses are due within 10 days without objection. Monetary sanctions are mandatory, unless the imposition of sanctions would be unjust or the party subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification. (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300.)
As to the interrogatories, the Duttons request monetary sanctions of $4,010.00. The Court finds these fees excessive, given the substantial similarity form this motion and the other discovery motions, and the relative simplicity of this motion. The Court will therefore impose sanctions in the reduced amount of $750.00, inclusive of costs. As to the inspection demand, Marinescu failed to respond to the inspection demand. The Duttons seek $3,010.39 in fees. The Court likewise finds these fees inflated. Accordingly, the Court will grant an additional $750 in sanctions, inclusive of costs.
Accordingly, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $1,500.00 against Marinescu payable within 30 days.
The Court has a few notes on the tenor of this litigation. The Court understands counsel’s frustration with Defendant Marinescu. The Court agrees that Marinescu has been less-than-truthful during this process, and takes opportunities to attack counsel during various hearings. Unlike a pro-per defendant, however, Mr. Staub is an officer of the court, and will be held to a higher standard than a pro-per litigant. While the Court commends Mr. Staub for ignoring these attacks in the past, it appears that he has taken a different road with this motion. In the future, Mr. Staub shall refrain from disrespectful verbiage and ad hominem attacks in pleadings. For example, Mr. Staub shall refrain from referring to anyone as “wretched” or “the most full of crap person who has ever contaminated a courthouse with her ogrish presence.” “Ad hominem arguments, of course, constitute one of the most common errors in logic: Trying to win an argument by calling your opponent names (‘Jane, you ignorant etcetera ....’) only shows the paucity of your own reasoning.” (Huntington Beach City Council v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1430.) Such attacks are inappropriate in the papers, and the court disregards such arguments. Furthermore, “[P]ersonal attacks on the character or motives of the opposing party, counsel, or witnesses are inappropriate and may constitute misconduct. [Citation omitted.]” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 412.) Counsel does not need to use this language to persuade the Court, and it only reflects poorly on counsel and harms Plaintiffs’ position.
In the past, Defendant Marinescu has used oral argument to tangentially and wrongfully attack counsel, and that behavior, much like counsel’s current filing, shall not continue. Going forward, Defendant Marinescu shall limit her comments and arguments at any hearings to the issues at hand, and if she fails to follow that order, then the Court shall consider other options to enforce appropriate and civil behavior. “Zeal and vigor in the representation of clients are commendable. So are civility, courtesy, and cooperation. They are not mutually exclusive.” (In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1537.) All parties and counsel are forewarned.