Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV33591, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33591    Hearing Date: April 7, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

In the first amended complaint filed on July 8, 2021, Plaintiff Jose Garcia (“Plaintiff”) alleges he was injured while working on the roof of a home owned by Defendants Beatriz Gutierrez and Roberto Gutierrez (collectively, “Defendants”).  (See First Amended Complaint, ¶ 6.)   

Defendants move the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to the following discovery request:

1.      Form Interrogatories, Set 1,  Propounded to Defendant (Motion A)

a.       Propounded:         July 30, 2021

b.      Responded:           September 16, 2021

c.       Motion Filed:        March 7, 2023

2.      Special Interrogatories, Set 1,  Propounded to Defendant (Motion B)

a.       Propounded:         July 30, 2021

b.      Responded:           September 16, 2021

c.       Motion Filed:        March 7, 2023

Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

Procedural Requirements

            Informal  Discovery Conference

            Per the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 [Filed 09/20/2022], ¶ 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).”   

            Here, the parties complied with the Standing Order in scheduling and attending the IDC on August 2, 2022.   

            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., §§ 2030.310, subd. (c).)  Failure to file such a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production of documents.  (Ibid.)

Here, Defendants filed the motions on the date set forth above.  Plaintiff has not objected to the timeliness of the motions. 

            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 Courtney N. Garcia (“Garcia”), counsel for Defendants, Defendants sent a meet and confer letter to counsel for Plaintiff who responded and requested an extension of time to serve further responses to the subject discovery requests.  (Declaration of Courtney N. Garcia, ¶¶ 7-8, Exhibits D-E.)  Garcia thereafter sent a letter to counsel for Plaintiff extending the time to serve the further discovery responses, but counsel for Plaintiff failed to respond.  (Declaration of Courtney N. Garcia, ¶¶ 9-10, Exhibit F.)  

            Based upon Garcia’s declaration, the Court finds that Defendants have made a good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented in the motions. 

            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, Defendants have filed separate statements related to the motions in compliance with the Rules of Court.   

Analysis

            “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].)          

RULING RE MOTION A:

·         Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.2 through 2.13; 4.1 through 4.2; 6.1 through 6.7; 7.1 through 7.3; 8.1 through 8.8; 9.1 through 9.2; 10.1 through 10.3; 11.1 through 11.2; 12.1 through 12.7; 13.1 through 13.2; 14.1 through 14.2:  GRANTED.[1] 

RULING RE MOTION B:

·         Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 51:  GRANTED. 

Sanctions

A trial court may sanction a party for engaging in the misuse of discovery, which includes:  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 2030.300, subdivision (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 a further 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.” 

            Here, Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motions based upon Plaintiff’s failure to provide complete, substantive responses to the subject discovery requests.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to provide complete, substantive responses to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions. Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $920.00 which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers and attend the hearing at $200 per hour, plus $120 for  filing fees at $60 per motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel further responses per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve further verified and substantive responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Special Interrogatories, Set 1, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders, as set forth above. 

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $920.00 to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.