Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV20415, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV20415, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20415 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: 29

Motions to Compel Further Discovery

Tentative

The motions are CONTINUED

Background

This case arises out of a vehicle accident that occurred on June 28, 2021, on the I-5 Freeway near Gene Autry Way. Plaintiff Bryant Mangum, III (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Jesus Jose Heredia, Jr. (“Heredia”) drove negligently and caused the accident, resulting in injuries to Plaintiff. In the Complaint, filed on June 22, 2022, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Heredia and Does 1 through 50. On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to name Red 1 Express Inc. as Doe 1.

On January 26, 2023, Defendants Heredia and Red 1 Express Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed their answer.

On September 19 and 20, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).

Currently before the Court are two discovery motions filed by Plaintiff on November 28, 2023. In these motions, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Red 1 Express, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.

Defendant filed oppositions (each labelled as an “objection”) on December 19. Defendant seeks sanctions.

Plaintiff did not file any reply.

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

As a threshold matter, Defendant argues that the motions are untimely, that there was no good faith meet-and-confer, and that there was no Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).

As to the last point, there has been no IDC on these two motions to compel further discovery responses. As set forth in the Eighth Amended Standing order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts (at page 7), “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).”

Accordingly, the hearing on these motions is continued for approximately 75 days so that an IDC may be scheduled and completed.

The Court expresses no views on the merits of the discovery dispute.

The Court does note its TENTATIVE view, however, that the motions are timely. The discovery responses at issue were served by email on October 10, 2023. (Jafari Decls., ¶ 4 & Exhs. B.) Forty-five days later was Friday, November 24 (which was a court holiday). The responses were served electronically, and so the time to file a motion to compel was extended by two court days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B). Thus, the last day to file the motions was two court days later, or on Tuesday, November 28 – the day that the motions were filed.

Conclusion

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on these two motions for approximately 75 days so that an IDC may be scheduled and completed.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.