Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV21894, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV21894, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21894 Hearing Date: September 21, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Background

This case arises out of a bus accident that allegedly occurred on October 26, 2020, near the intersection of Long Beach Boulevard, the I-105 Freeway, and a driveway to a Metro parking lot in Lynwood, California. Plaintiff Daiven Marie Davis (“Plaintiff”) alleges that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of a bus owned and/or operated by Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”), and that she sustained injuries as a result.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 11, 2021, asserting a cause of action for vicarious liability of a public entity against MTA and Does 1 through 50. MTA filed its answer on August 25, 2021.

On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel MTA to provide a further response to Request For Production (Set Two), No. 18. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions. MTA filed its opposition on September 8, 2023.

The parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference on August 24, 2023. The dispute was not resolved.

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; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(f), (h).)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Request For Production No. 18 asks MTA to produce “All your policies and procedures in effect at the time of the incident relating to the operation of the bus involved in the incident.”

MTA objected on the ground that Request No. 18 is “vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and seeks production of documents which are not relevant to the subject matter of this action.” Without waiving those objections, MTA agreed to produce (and did produce) the Tables of Contents for the MTA Rulebook (“Rules”) and the MTA Standard Operating Procedures (“Procedures”) and asked Plaintiff to identify which Rules and which Procedures Plaintiff believes are relevant.

In response, Plaintiff makes essentially two arguments. First, Plaintiff argues that MTA’s response to the Request for Production was untimely, and MTA therefore waived all objections. Second, Plaintiff argues that Request No. 18 seeks relevant information as it calls for only those procedures in effect at the time of the incident.

Beginning with the timing issue, Plaintiff served the discovery on January 9, 2023. (Chun Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.) MTA served its response on February 22, 2023. (Id., ¶ 6 & Exh. C.). This is well after the time allowed by statute had expired.

As Plaintiff argues, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), when a party fails to serve a timely response to a request for production, that party “waives any objection to the demand.”

MTA does not respond to the waiver issue in its opposition or present any argument as to why it has not waived its objections by an untimely response.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2031.300, subdivision (a), the Court determines that MTA has waived its objections. On that basis, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Turning to sanctions, an award of monetary sanctions is required under the Civil Discovery Act unless the Court finds that MTA and its counsel acted with substantial justification or that the imposition of a sanction would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) Asserting waived objections, and not responding to the argument about waiver, is not, on this record, conduct that is substantially justified, and the Court finds that there are no circumstances present in the record that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act are awarded in the amount of $1,111.65, calculated as follows: 3.5 hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $300 per hour, plus the filing fee of $61.65.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

MTA is ORDERED to provide a further verified, code-compliant written response, without objection, to Requests for Production No. 18, within 21 days of notice of this order, and thereafter to produce responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control as required under the provisions of the Civil Discovery Act.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

MTA and its counsel of record Keith Wyatt, Esq., are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,111.65 within 21 days of notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.