Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV17531, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV17531 Hearing Date: June 12, 2024 Dept: 29
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further
Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two)
Tentative
The motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The request for sanctions is granted in part and denied in
part.
Background
On May 10, 2021, Maurice Sr. Stewart and Stephanie Stewart filed
the complaint in this matter asserting one cause of action for negligence
against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) and
Does 1 through 20, arising out of a bus accident on May 1, 2020. Plaintiffs allege that they were passengers
on a Metro bus and were injured when the driver of the bus stopped suddenly, causing
them to “slam[] their back and shoulders into the bus wall.” (Complaint, ¶ 10.)
Metro filed an answer to the complaint on November 30, 2021.
On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff Stephanie Stewart (“Plaintiff”)
served discovery on Metro, including Form Interrogatories (Set Two). (Yadegari Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Metro provided responses that were signed by
counsel but not verified. (Id., ¶
3 & Exh. B.)
Plaintiff reserved a date for an Informal Discovery Conference
(IDC) and filed and served an IDC Form.
Metro did not respond or attend the IDC.
Plaintiff filed this motion on May 20, 2024, seeking further
responses as well as sanctions. Metro
filed its opposition on May 29. No reply
was filed.
The Court is aware that there are other motions to compel set
for hearing in this matter on June 14 and 24.
Legal Standard
“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding
party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding
party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular
interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to
produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required
specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an
interrogatory is without merit or too general.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given
“within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental
verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the
propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id.,
subd. (c).)
A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer
declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a
“concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id.,
subd. (b)(1) & (b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)
In Chapter 7 of the
Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a)
provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering
that any person “engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any
attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” A “misuse of
the discovery process” includes (among other things) failing to respond or to
submit to an authorized method of discovery; making, without substantial
justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive
response to a discovery request; disobeying a court order to provide discovery;
and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without substantial
justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(h).)
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Metro to provide a further
response to Form Interrogatories 12.6 and 17.1 (relating to Requests for
Admission Nos. 15, 20, 21, 33, 37, 40, and 42).
The Court begins with two threshold issues.
First, Metro says something in its Opposition Memorandum about
verifications, but it is unclear what Metro is saying and it is not supported
by evidence. (See Opp. at 5:1-3.) It may (or may not) be that Metro is saying
that it provided the verifications for the responses on or about May 29, 2024.
Second, Metro argues that Plaintiff’s entire motion is untimely. Notice of a motion to compel further
responses must be given no more than 45 days after service of the verified
responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300,
subd. (c).) Failure to give such notice
in a timely fashion results in a waiver of any right to compel further
responses. (Ibid.) The waiver cannot be avoided simply by
re-propounding the same discovery a second time. (Professional Career Colleges, Magna Institute,
Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 494; 2 Weil & Brown,
California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2024), ¶ 8:1150.5.)
Here, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories (Set One) in
August 2022. (Wyatt Decl., ¶¶ 2-3 &
Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s Form
Interrogatories included both Nos. 12.6 and 17.1. (Id., ¶ 3 & Exh. 1.) Metro served responses to the Form
Interrogatories, including Nos. 12.6 and 17.1, on September 9, 2022, and
followed up with verifications on September 14, 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5 & Exhs. 2-3.) The verified response to Form Interrogatory
No. 17.1 specifically responded as to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission Nos. 1
through 23. (Id., Exh. 2, at p.
24.)
Accordingly, the Court denies (1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel
a further response to Form Interrogatory 12.6, and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a further response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to Requests
for Admission Nos. 15, 20, and 21. As to
those discovery requests, Metro served verified responses in September 2022,
and Plaintiff did not move to compel within the statutory time period. This results in a waiver of any right to
bring a motion to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section
2030.300, subdivision (c). (The waiver,
of course, does not prevent Plaintiff from propounding a supplemental
interrogatory under section 2030.070.)
There has been no showing of waiver, however, regarding Form
Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to Requests for Admission Nos. 33, 37, 40, and
42. The responses provided in September
2022 covered only Requests for Admission Nos. 1 through 23. (Wyatt Decl., Exh. 2, at p. 24.)
With regard to the responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 relating
to Requests for Admission Nos. 33, 37, 40, and 42, the Court has reviewed the
responses and determines that Metro has provided code compliant responses to
subparts (a) and (b). But Metro has not provided
code compliant responses to subparts (c) and (d).
No information at all is provided in response to subpart (c). That is not a straightforward and complete
response, as required.
As to subpart (d) Metro states only that the responsive
documents “include” certain categories of items. That is also not a straightforward and
complete response; to the contrary, it is evasive and at least potentially
incomplete.
Accordingly, the Court (1) denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel
a further response to subparts (a) and (b) of Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates
to Requests for Admission Nos. 33, 37, 40, and 42; and (2) grants Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a further response to subparts (c) and (d) of Form
Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to Requests for Admission Nos. 33, 37, 40, and
42.
The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions. On the
substantive motion to compel, the Court is granting the motion in part and
denying the motion in part, but at the end of the day Metro has in part
unsuccessfully opposed a motion to compel further responses. As to that part of the motion, sanctions are
authorized under Code of Civil Procedure 2030.300, subdivision (d), as Metro has not
acted with substantial justification in opposing that part of the motion, and awarding
sanctions would not be unjust. Full, not
partial, compliance with the Civil Discovery Act is expected and required. For that part of the motion, the Court sets
sanctions in the amount of $525, calculated based on 1.5 hours of attorney work
multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $350 per hour for this
work. (See Yadegari Decl., ¶ 6.)
Conclusion
The motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The Court DENIES the motion to compel Defendant Metro to
provide a further response to Form Interrogatory 12.6.
The Court DENIES the motion to compel Defendant Metro to
provide a further response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to Requests
for Admission Nos. 15, 20, and 21.
The Court DENIES the motion to compel Defendant Metro to
provide a further response to subparts (a) and (b) of Form Interrogatory 17.1
as it relates to Requests for Admission Nos. 33, 37, 40, and 42.
The Court GRANTS the motion to compel Defendant Metro to
provide a further response to subparts (c) and (d) of Form Interrogatory 17.1
as it relates to Requests for Admission Nos. 33, 37, 40, and 42.
The Court ORDERS Defendant Metro to provide verified, code
compliant, written responses, without objection, to subparts (c) and (d) of
Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to Requests for Admission Nos. 33, 37,
40, and 42, within 21 days of notice of this order.
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions.
The Court ORDERS Defendant Metro and its counsel of record Ivie
McNeil Wyatt Purcell & Diggs, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions
under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff in the amount of $525 within 30 days
of notice of this order.
Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.