Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV45455, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45455    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    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 or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  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 complaint filed on November 25, 2020, Plaintiff Michulae Nickole Walker Cudger (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was injured in a motor vehicle collision involving Defendant Skyler Jay Jones (“Defendants”).  Plaintiff moves the Court for orders compelling Defendant to provide further responses to the following discovery requests:

1. Form Interrogatories, Set 1, Propounded to Defendant

   1. Propounded:  July 14, 2021

   2. Responses:  September 17, 2021

   3. Motion Filed:  May 27, 2022

       

2. Requests for Admission, Set 1, Propounded to Defendant

   1. Propounded:  July 14, 2021

   2. Responses:  September 17, 2021

   3. Motion Filed:  May 27, 2022

       

      Defendant opposes the motions. 

       

      Procedural Requirements

       

                  Informal  Discovery Conference

       

                  Per the First Amended Standing Order re Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse, ¶¶ 12-13, “The purpose of an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) is to assist the parties to resolve and/or narrow the scope of discovery disputes.  . . .  Parties must participate in an IDC before a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery will be heard unless the moving party submits evidence, by way of declaration, that the opposing party has failed or refused to participate in an IDC.”[1] 

       

                  Here, the parties complied with the Standing Order, and the Court presided over the required IDC on April 25, 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., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2033.290, 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 admission.  (Ibid.)

       

      Here, Plaintiff filed the motions on the dates set forth above.  Defendant 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), 2033.290, 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.”  (Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th 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, 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 informal resolution].)  In sum, meet and confer efforts should go beyond merely sending letters to each other stating each party’s respective positions.

       

                  Here, as set forth in the Declarations of Robert Dominguez Quiroga (“Dominguez”), Counsel for Plaintiff, and the Declarations of Kevin J. Stack (“Stack”), Counsel for Defendant, Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred through emails and telephonic communications from September 20, 2021 through April 4, 2022 in an attempt to resolve the discovery issues on an informal basis.  (Declaration of Dominguez, ¶¶ 6-11, Exhibits 3-11; Declaration of Stack, ¶¶ 7-8, 10, 12, 14, Exhibits B, D.) 

       

                  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of 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, Plaintiff has filed separate statements related to the motions which comply 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.4^th 377, 389 [cleaned up].)  

       

                  Generally, a party must undertake a good faith obligation to investigate sources reasonably available to it in responding to discovery requests.  (See Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504 [“a party has a general duty to conduct a reasonable investigation to obtain responsive information and must furnish information from all sources under his or her control].)[2]  And where a party objects or responds inadequately 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., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a) [motion to compel further responses lies “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories”]; 2033.290, subd. (a) [motion to compel further responses lies “[o]n receipt of a response to requests for admissions”].)  “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].)

       

      RULINGS RE Form Interrogatories: [3]

       

      Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1; 2.1 - 2.13; 4.1 - 4.2; 6.1 - 6.7; 7.1 - 7.3; 9.1 - 9.2; 12.1 - 12.7; 13.1 - 13.2; 14.1 - 14.2; 15.1; 16.1 - 16.10; 17.1 and 20.1 - 20.11:  GRANTED

       

      RULINGS RE Requests for Admission:[4] 

       

      Requests for Admission Nos. 1 – 29:  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.”  (See also Code Civ. Proc., § 2033. 290, subd. (d).)

       

                  Here, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions based upon Defendant’s failure to provide complete, substantive responses to the subject discovery requests.  The Court finds Defendant’s failure to provide, in part, complete, substantive responses to be an abuse of the discovery process.  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $870 which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fees for the motions at $60.00 per motion.

       

      CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

       

      Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to Form  Interrogatories, Set 1 and to Requests for Admission, Set 1 per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2033.290 as set forth above.  Defendant shall serve further responses within 90 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

       

      Further, the Court orders Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $870 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 90 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

       

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