Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV27900, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 21STCV27900 Hearing Date: February 16, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses,
Without Objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1 and Request for Order
Awarding Monetary Discovery Sanctions Against Cross-Defendant and Defense
Counsel for Reasonable Expenses Actually Incurred
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Kamerron Easton
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses,
Without Objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1 and Request for Order
Awarding Monetary Discovery Sanctions Against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant and
Defense Counsel for Reasonable Expenses Actually Incurred
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Kamerron Easton
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses,
Without Objections, to Demand for Inspection, Set No. 1 and Request for Order
Awarding Monetary Discovery Sanctions against Cross-Defendant and Cross-Defense
Counsel
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Kamerron Easton
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion for Order (Further Verified
Responses as this Court Ordered on 3/21/2023), and Request for Order Awarding
Monetary Discovery Sanctions, Issues, Evidentiary and/or Contempt Sanctions are
Warranted
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Kamerron Easton
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters
Specified in Request for Admissions, Set No. 3 Admitted and for Imposition of
Monetary Discovery Sanctions Against Cross-Defendant and Cross-Defense Counsel
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Kamerron Easton
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion for Monetary Sanctions for
Violations of Court Orders (Court Orders Dated: 03/21/2023 and 03/28/2023)
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Kamerron Easton
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Issue Terminating Sanctions
for Failure to Produce Documents Pursuant to Court Order and for Sanctions
Moving Party: Defendant
James P. Ashby
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Issue Terminating Sanctions
for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Request for Sanctions
Moving Party: Defendant
James P. Ashby
Resp. Party: None
Easton’s Further FROGs Motion
Against Gray is GRANTED.
Easton’s Further
SROGs Motion Against Gray is GRANTED.
Easton’s Further SROGs Motion Against
FCPDA is GRANTED.
Easton’s Further RPDs Motion Against
Gray is GRANTED.
Further
responses to the relevant FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs much be served within thirty
(30) days of the issuance of this Order.
Easton’s Motion to Deem
Admitted RFAs Against Gray is GRANTED.
The RFAs served on Gray on March 30,
2023 are DEEMED ADMITTED.
Easton’s Motion
for Monetary Sanctions Against Gray is GRANTED IN PART.
Costs are
AWARDED in favor of Easton and against Gray in the total amount of $573.85.
Costs are
AWARDED in favor of Easton and against FCPDA in the total amount of $114.77.
Ashby’s
RPDs Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against FCPDA is DENIED as moot.
Ashby’s
FROGs Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against FCPDA is DENIED as moot.
BACKGROUND:
On July 28, 2021,
Family Choice Private Duty Agency, Inc. (“FCPDA”) filed its Complaint against
Kamerron Easton (“Easton”) and James P. Ashby (“Ashby”) on causes of action for
breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
commons counts.
On October 15, 2021,
Easton, who is an attorney litigating in propria persona, filed his
Cross-Complaint against FCPDA and Shellydale Princess Gray (“Gray”).
On October 22, 2021,
Easton filed his Answer to the Complaint.
On February 8, 2022,
the Court sustained in part FCPDA and Gray’s Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint.
Specifically, the Court sustained the Demurrer to the first and sixth causes of
action in the Cross-Complaint, for breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and intentional infliction of emotional distress, respectively.
On March 10, 2022,
FCPDA and Gray filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On May 6, 2022, FCPDA
and Gray filed their Amended Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On October 7, 2022,
Ashby filed his Answer to the Complaint.
On multiple dates in
2023 (including March 14, March 16, March 21, March 28, and May 9), the Court
granted or granted in part various motions filed by Easton against Gray and
FCPDA.
On
March 27, 2023, Easton filed: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses, Without Objections,
to Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1 and Request for Order Awarding Monetary
Discovery Sanctions Against Cross-Defendant and Defense Counsel for Reasonable
Expenses Actually Incurred (“Easton’s Further SROGs Motion Against Gray”); and
(2) Motion to Compel Further Responses, Without Objections, to Special
Interrogatories, Set No. 1 and Request for Order Awarding Monetary Discovery
Sanctions Against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant and Defense Counsel for Reasonable
Expenses Actually Incurred (“Easton’s Further SROGs Motion Against FCPDA”).
On
April 7, 2023, Easton filed his Motion to Compel Further Responses, Without
Objections, to Demand for Inspection, Set No. 1 and Request for Order Awarding
Monetary Discovery Sanctions against Cross-Defendant and Cross-Defense Counsel
(“Easton’s Further RPDs Motion Against Gray”).
On
April 14, 2023, Easton filed his Motion for Order (Further Verified Responses
as this Court Ordered on 3/21/2023), and Request for Order Awarding Monetary
Discovery Sanctions, Issues, Evidentiary and/or Contempt Sanctions are
Warranted (“Easton’s Further FROGs Motion Against Gray”).
On
May 15, 2023, Easton filed his Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in
Request for Admissions, Set No. 3 Admitted and for Imposition of Monetary
Discovery Sanctions Against Cross-Defendant and Cross-Defense Counsel
(“Easton’s Motion to Deem Admitted RFAs Against Gray”).
On
May 17, 2023, Easton filed his Motion for Monetary Sanctions for Violations of
Court Orders (Court Orders Dated: 03/21/2023 and 03/28/2023) (“Easton’s Motions
for Monetary Sanctions Against Gray”).
On
June 30, 2023, Gray filed: (1) Opposition to Easton’s Motions for Orders, to
Compel Responses, Without Objections, Deem Request for Admissions (Set 3)
Admitted, and for Sanctions (“Gray’s Combined Opposition”); and (2) Proof of
Service.
On
October 25, 2023, the Court ordered FCPDA to provide initial responses to form
interrogatories (“FROGs”) and requests for production of documents (“RPDs”)
propounded by Ashby within fourteen days. The Court also deemed admitted the
requests for admission (“RFAs”) propounded by Ashby against FCPDA.
On
December 21, 2023, Ashby filed: (1) Motion to Issue Terminating Sanctions for
Failure to Produce Documents Pursuant to Court Order and for Sanctions
(“Ashby’s RPDs Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against FCPDA”); and (2) Motion
to Issue Terminating Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order and
Request for Sanctions (“Ashby’s FROGs Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against
FCPDA”). Ashby filed Declaration of William F. Clark for each of these motions.
On
January 2, 2024, by request of FCPDA, the Clerk’s Office dismissed with
prejudice Ashby from the Complaint.
On
January 30, 2024, the Court continued the eight outstanding discovery motions
to February 6, 2024. The Court did not allow additional briefing.
On
February 6, 2024, the Court continued the eight outstanding discovery motions
to February 16, 2024. The Court ordered the Parties to meet and confer
regarding a date that responses were to be due and for sanctions.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Easton’s
Discovery Motions
A. Legal Standard
1.
Further
Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents
On receipt of a response
to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the
propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further
response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation
of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the
objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd.
(a), 2031.310, subd. (a).)
The court shall impose
monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a motion to compel further interrogatories and/or a motion to
compel further production of documents, unless the Court finds that the one
subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)
2. Initial Responses to Requests for Admission
California Code of Civil Procedure requires a
response from the party to whom the request for admissions is directed within
30 days after service of the request for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.250, subd. (a).)
If the party fails to serve a timely response,
“the party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection
to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)
The requesting party may then “move for an
order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters
specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanction
under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)
A court will deem requests admitted, “unless
it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed
has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the
requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.
It is
mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to
serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
B. Discovery
Easton submits to the Court evidence
that:
(1) form interrogatories (“FROGs”) were served on Gray on
December 22, 2022 (Easton’s Further FROGs Motion Against Gray, Exh. A);
(2) special interrogatories (“SROGs”) were served on Gray on
January 6, 2023 (Easton’s
Further SROGs Motion Against Gray, Exh. A);
(3)
SROGs
were separately served on FCPDA on January 6, 2023 (Easton’s Further SROGs
Motion Against FCPDA, Exh. A);
(4)
initial responses to the FROGs on Gray were submitted January
11, 2023 (Easton’s Further FROGs Motion Against Gray, Exh. B);
(5)
further responses to the FROGs served on Gray were requested
January 17, 2023 (Easton’s Further FROGs Motion Against Gray, Exh. C);
(6)
requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) were served on
Gray on January 23, 2023 (Easton’s Further RPDs Motion Against Gray, Exh. A);
(7)
initial
responses to the SROGs on Gray were submitted February 10, 2023 (Easton’s Further SROGs Motion Against Gray, Exh. B);
(8)
initial
responses to the SROGs on FCPDA were submitted February 10, 2023 (Easton’s Further SROGs Motion Against FCPDA, Exh. B);
(9)
initial responses to the RPDs on Gray were submitted February
24, 2023 (Easton’s
Further RPDs Motion Against Gray, Exh. B);
(10)
further
responses to the SROGs served on Gray were requested on March 1, 2023 (Easton’s Further SROGs Motion Against Gray, Exh. C);
(11)
further
responses to the SROGs served on FCPDA were requested on March 2, 2023 (Easton’s Further SROGs Motion Against FCPDA, Exh. C);
(12)
further responses to the RPDs served on Gray were requested
on March 9, 2023 (Easton’s
Further RPDs Motion Against Gray, Exh. C);
(13)
no further responses (including objections) were submitted by
Gray regarding the FROGs (Easton’s Further FROGs Motion Against Gray, Decl.
Easton, ¶¶ 6–9);
(14)
no
further responses (including objections) were submitted by Gray regarding the
SROGs (Easton’s Further
SROGs Motion Against Gray, Decl. Easton, ¶ 5);
(15)
no
further responses (including objections) were submitted by FCPDA regarding the
SROGs (Easton’s Further SROGs
Motion Against FCPDA, Decl. Easton, ¶ 5);
(16)
no further responses (including objections) were submitted by
Gray regarding the RPDs (Easton’s
Further RPDs Motion Against Gray, Decl. Easton, ¶ 6);
(17)
requests for admission (“RFAs”) were served on Gray on March 30, 2023 (Easton’s Motion to
Deem Admitted RFAs Against Gray, Exh. A); and
(18) no initial
responses (including objections) were submitted by Gray regarding the RFAs
(Easton’s Motion to Deem Admitted RFAs Against Gray, p. 5:9–14 and Decl.
Easton, ¶ 6).
Gray and FCPDA’s Opposition, dated
June 30, 2023, claims that “[u]pdated discovery responses are submitted
concurrently.” (Opposition, p. 3:8.) However, no declaration was attached to
the Opposition, and the Opposition did not provide any evidence that would
indicate further responses (to the FROGs on Gray, SROGs on Gray, SROGs on
FCPDA, or RPDs on Gray) or initial responses (to the RFAs on Gray) were
actually served.
On February 13,
2024, Gray and FCPDA finally submitted a declaration in support of their
Opposition. Their counsel seems to admit in this declaration that the relevant
further and initial responses have not yet been served. (Decl. Khouri, p.
2:21–27.) No evidence has been submitted to the Court that would indicate there
has yet been such responses.
The Court GRANTS
Easton’s Further FROGs Motion Against Gray.
The Court GRANTS
Easton’s
Further SROGs Motion Against Gray.
The Court GRANTS Easton’s Further SROGs
Motion Against FCPDA.
The Court GRANTS Easton’s Further RPDs Motion
Against Gray.
Further
responses to the relevant FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs much be served within 30 days
of the issuance of this Order.
The Court GRANTS
Easton’s Motion to Deem Admitted RFAs Against Gray.
The Court DEEMS ADMITTED the RFAs served
on Gray on March 30, 2023.
C. Sanctions
Easton requests multiple monetary
sanctions against Gray and FCPDA.
Regarding the
FROGs on Gray, Easton Requests $114.77 in monetary sanctions, which comprise of
the costs for the motion ($61.65 for motion fee, $13.12 for filing fee, and
$40.00 for courtesy copy delivery). (Easton’s Further FROGs Motion Against
Gray, p. 10:24–11:1 and Decl. Easton, ¶ 9.) In addition, Easton requests that
the Court issue monetary sanctions of $1,500.00 pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 177.5, as well as issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, and
contempt sanctions. (Id. at p. 11:1–4.)
Regarding the
SROGs on Gray, Easton requests $114.77 in monetary sanctions, similarly
comprised. (Easton’s Further SROGs Motion Against Gray, p. 10:15–20 and Decl.
Easton, ¶ 6.)
Regarding the
SROGs on FCPDA, Easton requests $114.77 in monetary sanctions, similarly
comprised. (Easton’s Further SROGs Motion Against FCPDA, p. 10:19–24 and Decl.
Easton, ¶ 7.)
Regarding the
RDPs on Gray, Easton requests $114.77 in monetary sanctions, similarly
comprised. (Easton’s Further RPDs Motion Against Gray, p. 11:27–12:3 and Decl.
Easton, ¶ 11.)
Regarding the
RFAs on Gray, Easton requests $114.77 in monetary sanctions, similarly
comprised. (Easton’s Motion to Deem Admitted RFAs Against Gray, p.
6:15–18 and Decl. Easton, ¶ 7.) In addition, Easton requests that the Court
award any other sanctions deemed appropriate, including issue sanctions,
evidence sanctions, and terminating sanctions. (Id. at p. 6:18–20.)
Finally, Easton
filed a separate motion for sanctions (including monetary sanctions, issue
sanctions, evidence sanctions, and terminating sanctions) for violation of the
Court’s prior Orders. (Easton’s Motions for Monetary Sanctions Against Gray, p.
6:5–19.) This includes a request for $114.77 in monetary sanctions, similarly
comprised, and a $1,500.00 monetary sanction pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 177.5. (Ibid.)
At this time, the
Court awards in favor of Easton and against Gray and FCPDA the costs associated
with filing each of these six motions. Although Easton is not entitled to
attorney’s fees for his self-representation, he is entitled to his costs.
The Court declines
to award issue sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, terminating sanctions, or
monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5. Future sanctions
will be considered if any party fails to comply with this Court’s Orders.
D. Conclusion
Easton’s Further FROGs Motion
Against Gray is GRANTED.
Easton’s Further
SROGs Motion Against Gray is GRANTED.
Easton’s Further SROGs Motion Against
FCPDA is GRANTED.
Easton’s Further RPDs Motion Against
Gray is GRANTED.
Further
responses to the relevant FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs much be served within thirty
(30) days of the issuance of this Order.
Easton’s Motion to
Deem Admitted RFAs Against Gray is GRANTED.
The RFAs served on Gray on March 30,
2023 are DEEMED ADMITTED.
Easton’s Motion
for Monetary Sanctions Against Gray is GRANTED IN PART.
Costs are
AWARDED in favor of Easton and against Gray in the total amount of $573.85.
Costs are
AWARDED in favor of Easton and against FCPDA in the total amount of $114.77.
(Counsel will note that the costs
awarded against Gray are five times those awarded against FCPDA. That is because five of the motions were only
directed at Gray while one of the motions was only directly at FCPDA.)
II. Ashby’s Motions for Terminating Sanctions
Ashby filed two motions for terminating
sanctions. However Ashby was dismissed with prejudice from the Complaint and
hence is no longer a party to this matter.
Ashby’s
RPDs Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against FCPDA is DENIED as moot.
Ashby’s
FROGs Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against FCPDA is DENIED as moot.