Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV44219, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV44219, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44219 Hearing Date: March 27, 2024 Dept: 29

City of Industry’s Motion for Various Relief Against Yesenia Hernandez
City of Industry’s Motion for Various Relief Against Angelique Cubias

Tentative

The Court will hear from counsel.

Background

These two consolidated cases arise out of an alleged vehicle accident on January 25, 2021, near the intersection of Nelson Avenue and Orange Avenue at or near the border of the City of La Puente and the City of Industry. The two cases were related on April 26, 2023, and consolidated on November 13, 2023.

In the lead case, Case No. 21STCV44219 (the “Zarazua Action”), on December 3, 2021, Plaintiff Rodolfo Zarazua (“Zarazua”) filed a complaint against Defendant Yesenia Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and Does 1 through 50, asserting a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. Hernandez filed her answer on February 16, 2023.

The second case, Case No. 22STCV05262 (the “Hernandez Action”) has a far more complicated procedural history. On February 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Hernandez and Angelique Cubias (a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Hernandez) (“Cubias”) filed the complaint asserting: (1) the first cause of action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Zarazua and Does 1 through 25; (2) the second cause of action for general negligence against the same defendants; (3) the third cause of action for dangerous condition of public property against Defendants the City of La Puente (La Puente”), the City of Industry (“Industry”), the County of Los Angeles (“County”), the California Department of Transportation (“DOT”), and Does 26 through 50.

On June 15, 2023, Defendants County and The People of the State of California erroneously sued as DOT each filed answers to the complaint. On June 26, 2023, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed the claims against DOT without prejudice.

On July 5, 2023, Zarazua filed an answer to the complaint.

On July 11, 2023, Zarazua filed a cross-complaint against Hernandez and Roes 1 through 50. Hernandez answered the cross-complaint on August 14, 2023.

On July 13, 2023, the Court sustained, with leave to amend, a demurrer filed by Defendant Industry. On August 11, 2023, Plaintiffs Hernandez and Cubias filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In the first and second causes of action in the FAC, Plaintiffs again asserted motor vehicle negligence and general negligence claims against Zarazua and Does 1 through 25. In the third cause of action, Plaintiffs again asserted a dangerous condition of public property claim against Defendants the City of La Puente, the City of Industry, the County of Los Angeles, DOT, and Does 26 through 50.

On August 25 and September 8, County and Zarazua filed answers to the FAC.

On September 12, 2023, La Puente filed a cross-complaint against County, Hernandez, and Foes 1 through 10.

On December 4, 2023, the Court overruled demurrers to the FAC filed by Industry and La Puente and granted in part, with leave to amend, a motion to strike filed by Industry.

On December 8, La Puente filed an answer to the FAC.

On December 12, County filed an answer to La Puente’s cross-complaint.

On December 12, 2023, Plaintiffs Hernandez and Cubias attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), but it was not accepted for filing by the clerk’s office. Nonetheless, on January 2, 2024, Industry filed an answer to the SAC and also a cross-complaint against Hernandez, Zarazua, and Zoes 1 through 25. LA Puente filed an answer to the SAC on January 12, 2024. Zarazua filed an answer to the SAC on January 26, 2024, and an answer to Industry’s cross-complaint on February 1, 2024. County filed an answer to the SAC on February 23, 2024.

On March 5, 2024, La Puente filed an amended cross-complaint against County, Hernandez, and Foes 1 through 10.

As it relates to the matters currently before the Court and set for hearing on March 27, 2024, Industry served Hernandez and Cubias with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) on October 30, 2023. (Cheng Decls., ¶ 6 & Exhs. 4-6.) Hernandez and Cubias did not serve timely responses. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.) Hernandez and Cubias served other counsel, but not lead counsel for Industry, with responses (not verified) on December 22. (Id., ¶ 9 & Exhs. 7-8.)

After meet and confer correspondence, Hernandez and Cubias served further responses on January 26, but again failed to serve counsel for Industry. (Id., ¶¶ 15, 17 & Exhs. 13-19.) Further meet and confer efforts did not resolve all of the parties’ disputes.

On January 30, 2024, Industry filed these two motions to compel. Industry also seeks sanctions. Hernandez and Cubias filed oppositions on February 14, and Industry filed replies on February 20.

Also on February 20, shortly before Industry filed its reply, Hernandez and Cubias served supplemental discovery responses. (Cheng Reply Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 18-19, 21-23.)

The hearing on the two motions was initially scheduled for February 27. On February 22, the Court conducted an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). The disputes were not resolved. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer within seven days and continued the hearing to March 27.

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).)

“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).)

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).)

Discussion

In its initial motions, Industry sought the following relief: (a) an order compelling Hernandez to serve verifications of the responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production; (b) an order compelling Cubias to serve verifications of the responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production; (c) an order compelling Hernandez to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 25, 27, and 31; (d) an order compelling Cubias to serve further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1 and Special Interrogatory No. 26; (e) an order compelling Hernandez to comply with her agreement to produce documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3-4, 9, 15, 21-24, and 33-36; and (f) an order compelling Hernandez to comply with her agreement to produce documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 7, 9, 10, 13, 19-23, and 29-30.

Industry also seeks monetary sanctions against both Hernandez and Cubias.

In opposition, Hernandez and Cubias argue (among other things) that the motions are premature (filed just days after they served amended responses, although the service apparently did not include Industry’s counsel); that Industry did not properly meet and confer (although a meet-and-confer is not required for some of the relief that Industry seeks); and that the motion will “soon” be moot as Hernandez and Cubias plan to provide supplemental responses.

Shortly before the replies were filed, Hernandez and Cubias did provide supplemental responses. These supplemental responses did not, according to Industry, resolve the matters in dispute.

Without assigning blame to either side, the Court is concerned that the issues in dispute have become a bit of moving target. The Court will hear from counsel regarding what specific discovery requests remain in dispute, where in the record the Court can find the most recent discovery responses of Hernandez and Cubias, and which specific requests made by Industry are still in dispute (and which, if any, have been resolved).

Conclusion

The Court will hear from counsel.