Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV13645, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13645    Hearing Date: May 23, 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 complaint filed on April 25, 2022, Plaintiffs Kenneth Washington, Kimberly Hagen and Marley Washington (“Washington”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that they were injured as a result of motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Raul Espinoza, who is employed by Defendant City of Hawthorne (“Defendant”) negligently operated the vehicle that collided with the vehicle occupied by Plaintiffs.  (See Complaint, pp. 4-6.)  Defendant moves the Court for an order compelling Washington to provide further responses to the following discovery request:

·         Form Interrogatories, Set 1,  Propounded to Plaintiff Marley Washington

a.       Propounded:  July 21, 2022

b.      Responded:  October 3, 2022

c.       Motion Filed:  November 10, 2022

Washington has not filed an opposition to the motion. 

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 and Washington have complied with the Standing Order in scheduling and attending an IDC on March 23, 2023 before the hearing on the motion. 

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., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c).)  Failure to file such a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to interrogatories.  (Ibid.)

            Defendant filed the motion on the date set forth above and Washington has not objected to the timeliness of the motion. 

3.      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 Alison Stevens (“Stevens”), counsel for Defendant states in pertinent part as follows:

·         On October 28, 2022, Defendant sent a meet-and-confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the insufficient discovery responses. I offered to afford Plaintiff extra time to provide supplemental responses in exchange for an extension of time within which to file a motion to compel, if necessary. A true and correct copy of my October 28, 2022, meet-and confer letter is attached hereto as Ex. "E Plaintiff ignored the meet and confer attempt as of the filing of this motion, no further responses have been forthcoming and Plaintiff has made no attempt to contact defense counsel. Court intervention is needed to compel the interrogatory answers and information so that Defendant may prepare itself adequately for trial.

(Declaration of Alison Stevens, ¶ 4, Exhibit E.)  Notwithstanding Counsel’s assertion, upon examination of Exhibit E, the Court finds that Defendant’s meet and confer letter does not pertain to Washington.  In fact, Exhibit E concerns Plaintiff Kimberly Hagen only; there is no reference to Washington and/or Washington’s purportedly deficient responses to the subject discovery request.       

            Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet and confer with Washington in a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the issues presented in the motion for the reasons stated.  The Court finds that Defendant’s purported meet and confer efforts in advance of filing the subject motion were woefully inadequate and certainly did not fulfill Defendant’s minimum obligations under the Discovery Act.  In other words, the Court finds that there was no serious effort at negotiations and informal resolution by Defendant.    

MONETARY 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; making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery; and failing to confer in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, emphasis added.)

            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, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.  But with the Court finding that Defendant failed to engage in a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the discovery issues before filing the instant motion, the Court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Washington and/or Washington’s counsel of record. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1, as to Plaintiff Marley Washington, for the reasons stated above. 

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