Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV03378, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV03378 Hearing Date: December 5, 2022 Dept: 29
Motions to Compel Further are taken off calendar and will be continued until the parties participate in an IDC.
The Eighth Amended LASC Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts, states "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 unless the parties have participated in an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a motion to compel further discovery responses.”
Pursuant to the order, “After meeting and conferring about available dates for an IDC, the moving/propounding party shall reserve an IDC through CRS and provide notice of the reserved IDC to the opposing/responding party by filing and serving an Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts (LASC CIV 239) at least 15 court days before the IDC and attach the CRS reservation receipt as the last page. The IDC will not be “scheduled” by the court until the IDC Form is filed. The opposing/responding party may file and serve a responsive IDC Form at least 10 court days before the IDC. All parties shall briefly set forth their respective positions on the pending discovery issues on the IDC Form.” In addition, please note that reserving or scheduling an IDC does not extend the time to file a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses.
The parties are encouraged to review the PI Standing Order.
Legal Standard
Motion to Compel Responses
The propounding party may file a motion to compel responses without
objection if a responding party fails to serve timely responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a)-(b).)
Request for Monetary Sanctions
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010(d), misuse of the
discovery process includes “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized
method of discovery.” The court may
order sanctions to cover “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
incurred by anyone as a result of” the misuse of the discovery by the party
being sanctioned. (Code Civ. Proc. §
2023.030(a).)
But “sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the
trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery. (City of Los
Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th
466, ___ [300 Cal.Rptr.3d 432], this newly-newly published case does not yet
have page numbers in the official reporter.)
The award of monetary sanction must be based on another provision of the
Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.010 et seq.
Where the court grants a motion to
compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with
substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).) There is a parallel provision for the court to impose monetary sanctions against any party, person
or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel response to written
discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §
2031.300(c).)
Discussion
Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Demands for Production (Set Three)
On April 9, 2021, Plaintiffs served Special Interrogatories (Set One)
on Defendant. (Mot. Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set
One), Ucros Decl. ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Defendant
requested a two-week extension but failed to provide responses. (Mot.
Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), Ucros Decl. ¶ 3;
Exh. B.) As of the date this motion was
filed, Plaintiffs have not received Defendant’s responses. (Mot. Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), Ucros
Decl. ¶ 4.) It is not clear whether
Defendant Jerry Byrne has yet responded to Special Interrogatories (Set One),
but absent Defendant’s opposition, the Court finds adequate ground to compel
responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One).
On February 11, 2022, Plaintiffs served Demands for Production (Set
Three) on Defendant. (Mot. Compel Responses to Demands for Production (Set
Three), Park Decl. ¶ 2; Exh. 1.) The
demands for production relate to Defendant’s medical condition, including his
claim that he suffered a stroke at the time of the subject incident, and are
directly relevant to Defendant Jerry Byrne’s affirmative defenses. (Mot. Compel Responses to Demands for
Production (Set Three), Exh. 1.) As of
the date of filing this motion, Plaintiffs still have not received Defendant’s
responses. (Mot. Compel Responses to
Demands for Production (Set Three), Park Decl. ¶ 4.) It is not clear whether Defendant Jerry Byrne
has yet responded to Demands for Production (Set Three), but absent Defendant’
opposition, the Court finds adequate ground to compel responses to Demands for
Production (Set Three).
Therefore, the Court grants the motion to compel responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set One) and the motion to compel responses to Demands for
Production (Set Three).
Request for Monetary Sanctions
The Court finds Defendant misused the discovery process by failing to
respond to two authorized methods of discovery.
The Court orders sanctions pursuant to section 2023.030(a), as the Court
is compelling responses and imposing sanctions relating to sections 2030.290(c)
and 2031.300(c) of the Discovery Act.
Two attorneys for Plaintiffs filed separate declarations about the
work conducted on these motions. Each of
the two attorneys have rates of $350/hour and ask for sanctions for sanctions
in the amount of three hours, or $1,050 each.
(Mot. Compel Responses to
Special Interrogatories (Set One), Ucros Decl. ¶ 5-8; Mot. Compel
Responses to Demands for Production (Set Three), Park Decl. ¶ 5-8.) But the attorneys’ briefs are very similar
and their arguments near identical. Additionally,
each attorney anticipated spending one hour reading Defendants’ opposition and
drafting a reply, but neither opposition nor reply papers were filed for these
motions. Moreover, despite the fact
there are two separate motions, the failure to respond to both is a single
omission; Plaintiffs are not entitled to double-recovery. Therefore, the Court grants the request for
monetary sanctions and awards Plaintiffs the amount of $700 total: $350 for one
hour of preparation of the motions for hearing plus $350 for attending the
hearing, with Plaintiffs’ attorneys splitting the award in proportion to their
work.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set One) and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to Demands
for Production (Set Three) are GRANTED.
Additionally, Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions are
GRANTED. Plaintiffs are awarded monetary
sanctions in the amount of $700 total.
Moving party to give notice.