Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV21879, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV21879 Hearing Date: February 22, 2024 Dept: 29
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for
Production of Documents
Tentative
The motion is granted.
The request for sanctions is granted in part.
Background
This case arises out of an alleged motor vehicle accident on June
27, 2019 in Carson, California.
Plaintiff Efrain Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this
action on June 11, 2021, asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle
negligence against Defendants Armando Rodriguez, Caddo Transport, and Does 1
through 100. On May 9, 2022, Defendant
Armando Rodriguez, individually and dba Caddo Transport (“Defendant”) filed his
Answer to the Complaint.
Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of
Documents (Set Two) on August 1, 2023. (Chung
Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff
served untimely, unverified responses on October 9. (Id., ¶ 8 & Exh. E.) The verification was provided on November
2. (Id., ¶ 12 & Exh. I.) A further response was served on November
14. (Id., ¶ 18 & Exh.
O.) The parties met and conferred
further but were unable to resolve their disputes. (Id., ¶¶ 9-11, 13-17, 19 & Exhs.
F-N, P-Q.)
The parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference
on January 16, 2024.
On January 25, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel further
responses. Defendant also requests
sanctions. Plaintiff filed an opposition
on February 7, and Defendant filed a reply on February 13.
On February 20, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply that is not
authorized by any statute, court rule, or court order.
Legal Standard
“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling
further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the
following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is
incomplete. (2) A representation of
inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without
merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.310, 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 set forth specific
facts showing good cause for the discovery and 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)-(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)
“[T]he 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 further response to a demand, 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., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)
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).)
Preliminary Matters
The Court will exercise its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s
late-served opposition to the motion.
The Court will not consider Plaintiff’s unauthorized sur-reply.
This is Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide further
responses to discovery. Any alleged
deficiencies in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests are not
before the Court. (See Connolly Decl.,
¶¶ 21-23 & Exhs. 16-18.)
The Court has reviewed the evidence and finds that Defendant
has satisfied the requirement to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to
compel further responses.
The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Separate Statement and
finds that it complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule
3.1345.
The Civil
Discovery Act provides for three separate types of motions relating to requests
for production of documents: (1) a motion to compel a code compliant initial
written response (when no response has been provided) (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.300); (2) a motion to compel a further response (when a response has been
provided but it is not code compliant or contains unmeritorious objections)
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310); and (3) a motion to compel compliance with a
response stating that the production will be made or the inspection will be
allowed (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320).
The notice of motion and motion states that Defendant brings this
motion under section 2031.310. Accordingly,
this is a motion to compel a further written response to the requests for
production; issues relating to compliance or production of the documents themselves
are not properly before the Court.
To the extent that Defendant is also
seeking an order compelling the production of documents, that request is denied
without prejudice. Such relief may be
sought through a properly filed motion brought under Code of Civil Procedure
section 2031.320.
Discussion
Defendant seeks a further written response to Requests for
Production Nos. 19-24.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s
Requests for Production (Set Two) within 30 days after service. (Chung Decl., ¶¶ 2, 9 & Exhs. A, E.) Therefore, as a matter of law, Plaintiff
waived all objections. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.300, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff’s most recent verified responses were served on
November 14. (Chung Decl., ¶ 18 &
Exh. O.)
Plaintiff served supplemental responses on February 6, one day
before he filed his opposition.
(Connolly Decl., Exh. 15.) These
responses are not verified, however, and therefore will not be considered by the
Court.
The Court has reviewed the verified responses served on
November 14. None of the responses are
code compliant. All responses include
objections, which have been waived. (The
Court notes that the unverified responses served on February 6 also improperly
include waived objections.) In addition,
the verified responses (served on November 14) to Requests Nos. 19-21 and 24 are
not complete and do not comply with the requirements in Code of Civil Procedure
section 2031.230. Accordingly, the
motion to compel further responses is GRANTED.
The Court also GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for monetary
sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel (as set forth in the notice of motion and
motion, no sanctions are sought against Plaintiff). The conduct of Plaintiff’s counsel was not
substantially justified, and it would not be unjust to impose sanctions against
Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court sets sanctions
in the amount of $1,035, calculated based on five hours of attorney time,
multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $195 per hour, plus a $60
filing fee. (See Chung Decl., ¶ 23.)
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel further
responses.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide code compliant, verified
written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production of
Documents (Set Two), Nos. 19-24, within 14 days of notice.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in part.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff’s counsel of record the Law Offices
of Chris Connolly to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to
Defendant in the amount of $1,035 within 30 days of notice.
All other relief sought by either side in connection with this
motion is denied without prejudice.
Moving party to give notice.