Judge Michael E. Whitaker, Case 21STCV31895 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV31895, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

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.

In the complaint filed on August 27, 2021, Plaintiffs Nahla Alicia Kandah and Alaa Kandah (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that they were injured as a result of motor vehicle collision. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Preston Young Dae Kim negligently operated a motor vehicle owned by Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC (“Defendant”). (See Complaint, First Cause of Action, p. 1.) Defendant moves the Court for orders compelling Plaintiffs to provide further responses to the following discovery requests:

1. Special Interrogatories, Set 1, Propounded to Plaintiff Nahla Alicia Kandah (Motion A)

2. Special Interrogatories, Set 1, Propounded to Plaintiff Alaa Kandah (Motion B)

3. Requests for Admissions, Set 1, Propounded to Plaintiff Nahla Alicia Kandah (Motion A)

4. Requests for Admissions, Set 1, Propounded to Plaintiff Alaa Kandah (Motion B)

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 notes that Plaintiffs failed to appear at the IDC scheduled for April 12, 2023 despite proper notice. Notwithstanding, the Court finds that Defendant complied with the Standing Order in scheduling and attending an IDC on April 12, 2023 before the hearing on the motions.

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.)

Defendant filed Motions A and B on the dates set forth above. Plaintiffs have not objected to the timeliness of the motions.

“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 Declarations of Adam I. Miller (“Miller”), counsel for Defendant states in pertinent part as follows:

· On December 1, 2022, I sent Nahla's counsel a meet and confer letter, outlining in great detail the issues with Nahla's responses to the Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission, requesting that supplemental responses be served by December 8, 2022, and advising that a motion to compel will be made if code-compliant responses were not provided. A true and correct copy of my December 1st Meet and Confer Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

· To date, neither a response to my December 1st letter nor verified supplemental responses have been received.

· On December 1, 2022, I sent Alas's counsel a meet and confer letter, outlining in great detail the issues with Alaa's responses to the Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission, requesting that supplemental responses be served by December 8, 2022, and advising that a motion to compel will be made if code-compliant responses were not provided. A true and correct copy of my December 1st Meet and Confer Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

· To date, neither a response to my December 1^st letter nor verified supplemental responses have been received.

Based upon Miller’s declarations, the Court finds that Defendant has made a good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented in Motions A and B.

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, Defendant has filed separate statements related to Motions A and B which comply with Rule 3.1345.

“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].)

· Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20: GRANTED. [2]

· Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20: GRANTED. [4]

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, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with Motions A and B based upon Plaintiffs’ failures to provide code compliant responses to the subject discovery requests. The Court finds Plaintiffs failures to provide code compliant responses to be abuses of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions. Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against each Plaintiff and their counsel of record, Law Offices of Lawrence Hoodack, in the amount of $690 which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers and attend the hearing, at $190 per hour, plus the filing fees of $120 at $60 per motion.

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Motions A and B per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2033.290 for the reasons state above, and orders Plaintiffs to serve further verified and code compliant responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set 1, Nos. 1-20, and Requests for Admissions, Set 1, Nos. 1-5, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders each Plaintiff and their counsel of record, Law Offices of Lawrence Hoodack, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $690 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service regarding the same.

[1] Defendant failed to file with Motions A and B the proofs of service attendant to the subject discovery requests. The dates as noted stem from the Declaration of Adam I. Miller, paragraph 5.

[2] “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subds. (a)-(c).) Here, Plaintiffs failed to state that they made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information, but nevertheless are unable to answer the special interrogatories completely or in part. Moreover, because Plaintiffs failed to oppose Motions and B, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to substantiate any objections to the subject discovery requests.

[3] “Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. . . . If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subds. (a) & (c).) Furthermore, a party must undertake a good faith obligation to investigate sources reasonably available to it in responding to a 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].) Here, Plaintiffs have not indicated that they have complied with their general duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry concerning the matters presented in the subject discovery requests. Moreover, because Plaintiffs failed to oppose Motions and B, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to substantiate any objections to the subject discovery requests.

[4] See Footnote 2 above.

[5] See Footnote 3 above.

DEPARTMENT	32
HEARING DATE	May 25, 2023
CASE NUMBER	21STCV31895
MOTIONS	Motions to Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set 1; Requests for Admissions, Set 1; Requests for Monetary Sanctions
MOVING PARTY	Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC
OPPOSING PARTY	None