Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21TRCV00408 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00408, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00408 Hearing Date: December 13, 2022 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: December 13, 2022¿¿

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21TRCV00408

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Shaun Anderson v. Derrick Grandberry, et al.

¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Shaun Anderson

¿¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Derrick Grandberry

¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None Set.¿

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Production of Documents

(2) Request for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel responses are DENIED.

(2) Requests for Monetary Sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $1,000

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

On June 4, 2021, Plaintiff Shaun Anderson (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant, Southern California Gas Company, Derrick Grandberry, and Does 1 through 20. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on December 20, 2020, she called SoCalGas to report a gas leak in her building. Defendant, Derrick Grandberry (“Grandberry”) responded to the call. Plaintiff’s complaint arises out of her claim that Grandberry raped her during the service call. Grandberry denied the incident, and denied that he had sex or raped her, in both written discovery responses and at his deposition. At his deposition, Grandberry testified that he received a letter of termination from Defendant SoCalGas, but refused to state what the letter said, and has refused to produce the letter in response to a follow up written discovery request. Plaintiff has also noted that Grandberry has refused to produce all related documents pertaining to his termination.

As such, Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel the production of documents related to Grandberry’s termination.

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On November 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions. On November 28, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a reply brief, perhaps because as per the Opposition a supplemental further response has been given and additional documents produced.

¿¿

¿II. MEET AND CONFER ¿¿¿

¿¿ On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Richard Rome, Grandberry’s attorney. (Manuel Corrales, Jr. (“Corrales Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibit 2.) Plaintiff claims that it received no response from Defendant’s attorney. In Richard Rome’s Declaration (“Rome Decl.”), he acknowledges that he did not receive attorney Corrales’ meet and confer email on October 17, 2022 due to an oversight complicated by a surgery that he had on September 23, 2022. He verified this surgery by attaching exhibits. (Rome Decl., ¶ 5, Exhibit A-B.)

¿III. ANALYSIS¿¿

¿¿

A. Motions to Compel Responses

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s moving papers that these documents are relevant and may lead to the production of admissible evidence. According to defense counsel’s Declaration, the documents that are the basis of this motion were produced on November 28, 2022 when Defendant forwarded all attorneys a supplemental response with requested documents. (Rome Decl., ¶ 10, Exhibit C.) As such, the motion to compel appears to be mooted.

B. Sanctions

Plaintiff has requested that this Court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿Sanctions are mandatory for a party making or opposing a motion, except when the party making or opposing the motion is determined by the Court to have been acting with substantial justification, or that other circumstances would render the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Under the Civil Discovery Act, the Court is only entitled to impose monetary sanctions in the amount of “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of” the misuse of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) The purpose of discovery sanctions is “not to provide a weapon for punishment, forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits, but to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented.” (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 285, 301.) Consequently, “[t]he trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 992.)¿

Here, Plaintiff requests sanction against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel in the sum of $3,000 because Plaintiff claims that there is no basis to object to these documents as Grandberry lied about not being fired over the incident and lied about not having sex with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that Plaintiff incurred, and will incur, $4,380.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees in preparing the motion, based on his market rate of $600.00 per hour, and included a breakdown of these hours. (Corrales Decl. ¶ 8.) However, Plaintiff only seeks $3,000 in sanctions for reimbursement of fees incurred in connection with this motion. The Opposition points out that the August 2022 deposition was taken months after Mr. Grandberry answered form interrogatory 17.1 in March of 2022, and that during the intervening time he had been fired. Accordingly, the verified earlier interrogatory response was true as of the date of verification but subsequent events led to a different answer in his deposition.

The Opposition also reviewed Mr. Rome’s declaration regarding his medical issues and of his correction of the discovery shortcomings when he was able to do so. But those corrections came only after the motion to compel was filed, discovery motions having statutory deadlines so patience in awaiting further responses is sometimes penalized rather than being rewarded. The Court is sympathetic to lawyers who demonstrate medical reasons for being tardy or failing to respond promptly to emails, letters, or notices from the Court. But there are two names on the pleadings Mr. Rome’s office files in this case, and no showing as to why Mr. Rome’s co-counsel Ms. Ford could not have reviewed incoming mail, sought or granted extensions of time, or otherwise helped to lessen the need for discovery motions in actively litigated cases. Accordingly, the Court will significantly reduce the size of the monetary sanctions and award 1/3 of the reduced amount Plaintiff sought here.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel responses are DENIED. However, monetary sanctions are granted to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.

¿¿¿¿

Moving party is ordered to give notice.¿¿¿¿¿