Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV08018, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV08018, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08018 Hearing Date: February 21, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Response to Request for Statement of Damages (filed 11/8/23)
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (filed 11/8/23)
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (filed 11/8/23)
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (filed 11/8/23)

Tentative

The motion to compel a response to the request for statement of damages is denied as moot. The request for sanctions is denied.

The three motions to compel further responses are continued for approximately 30 days.

Background

This case arises out of an alleged motor vehicle accident on April 11, 2021, near the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Greenwood Avenue in Montebello. On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff Cindy Garofalo (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against Defendants Circle K Stores, Inc., Wayne Sheppard, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. On August 2, 2023, Defendants Circle K Stores, Inc. and Wayne Edward Sheppard (collectively “Defendants”) filed their answer to the complaint.

On the same day that they answered, August 2, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with a Request for Statement of Damages. (Gonzalez Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.) Defendants followed up on August 29, October 9, October 26, October 30, October 31, November 6, and November 7, and although Plaintiff did respond to some of those communications with promises of future compliance, Plaintiff never served a statement of damages. (Id., ¶¶ 6-18 & Exhs. B-E.)

On November 8, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the Request for Statement of Damages.

Plaintiff did not file any opposition, but Plaintiff did serve a statement of damages on or about November 15, 2023. (Gonzalez IDC Decl., ¶ 22 & Exh. 8.)

Also on August 2, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). (Gonzalez Decls., ¶ 4 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff served responses on September 20. (Id., ¶ 6 & Exhs. B.) The parties met and conferred and although Plaintiff agreed to provide amended responses, no such amended responses were served. (Id., ¶¶ 7-17.)

On November 8, Defendants filed these three motions to compel further responses. Defendants also seek sanctions.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition.

On January 19, 2024, Defendants filed a declaration of counsel in connection with an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) scheduled for February 9. In that declaration, Defendants stated that they received further responses to the discovery requests on December 19, 2023. (Gonzalez IDC Decl., ¶ 24 & Exhs. 9-12.) Defendants contend that the further responses are still not code compliant. (Id., ¶ 25.)

The disputes were not resolved at the IDC.

Legal Standard

Statement of Damages

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11, subdivision (b), requires that when a defendant in a personal injury case requests a statement of damages, the plaintiff must “serve a responsive statement as to the damages within 15 days.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subd. (b).) If a timely response is not served, “the defendant, on notice to the plaintiff, may petition the court in which the action is pending to order the plaintiff to serve a responsive statement.” (Ibid.)

Further Responses to Interrogatories and Document Requests

“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

Statement of Damages

Shortly after this motion was filed, Plaintiff served a statement of damages. (Gonzalez IDC Decl., ¶ 22 & Exh. 8.) Accordingly, the request for an order compelling the service of a statement of damages is DENIED as moot.

Defendants also seek monetary sanctions. Although there is no direct statutory authority for an award of sanctions in this context, Defendants correctly note that one Court of Appeal decision from the Fourth District mentions in dicta in a footnote that such sanctions might be available in certain circumstances. (Argame v. Werasophon (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 616, 618 fn. 3.)

The Court exercises its discretion to decline to award sanctions here, where, shortly before the motion was filed, Plaintiff asked for a brief extension of time to complete the statement of damages and where, shortly after the motion was filed, the statement of damages was in fact served. Moreover, the Court notes that a Second District Court of Appeal decision has taken a more narrow view on the power of a court to award sanctions in the absence of express legislative authority. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504, 510-511.) The Court is aware that the California Supreme Court has granted review of the City of Los Angeles case. The order granting review, filed on January 25, 2023, states that pending review, the appellate opinion “may be cited,” including “for its persuasive value.” The Court finds the reasoning of Justice Moor in City of Los Angeles to be persuasive.

Further Response to Interrogatories and Document Requests

In their moving papers, filed on November 8, Defendants seek further responses to Form Interrogatories 7.1, 10.1, and 14.1; Special Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 8-15, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 37, 38, 40, 41, 48, 58, 59, 61, 62, 77, and 80; and Requests for Production Nos. 1-13 and 16.

On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff served further responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production. (Gonzalez IDC Decl., ¶ 24 & Exhs. 10-13.) Defendants contend that the “vast majority” of these further responses are still “evasive and inadequate.” (Id., ¶ 25.)

Defendants initial moving papers were complete and included a Separate Statement. In light of Plaintiff’s subsequent service of amended responses, however, it is unclear to the Court what discovery responses remain in dispute; Defendants’ statement that some or most responses remain “evasive” and/or “inadequate” is not sufficient.

Accordingly, the Court will continue the hearing on the three motions to compel for approximately 30 days and order Defendants to file, for each motion, an updated Separate Statement that complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES as moot Defendants’ motion to compel a response to the request for a statement of damages. The Court DENIES the request for sanctions in that motion.

The Count CONTINUES the hearing on Defendants’ motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production for approximately 30 days, to a date convenient for the Court and counsel.

The Court ORDERS Defendants to file an updated Separate Statement under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, for each motion, at least ten court days in advance of the new hearing date.

Moving parties to give notice.