Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV28023, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV28023, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28023 Hearing Date: August 9, 2024 Dept: 29

Barron v. Liao
23STCV28023
March 1, 2024

Motions to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are granted in part.

Background

Plaintiffs Angelina Barron and Rheianne Marquez (“Plaintiffs”) filed the complaint in this action on November 15, 2023, and the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 8, 2024. In the FAC, Plaintiffs assert causes of action for negligence/negligence per se and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against Defendants Ruijie Liao (“Liao”), Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), and Does 1 through 50, arising out of a vehicle accident on April 14, 2022, at or near the intersection of North Eastern Avenue and McPherson Avenue in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs allege that they used Uber’s application to obtain transportation and at the time of the accident they were passengers in a vehicle driven by their Uber driver Liao.

Liao filed an answer to the FAC on January 26, 2024. Uber filed an answer to the FAC on May 13, 2024.

On March 21, 2024, Plaintiff Angelina Barron served Liao with Form Interrogatories (Set One); Special Interrogatories (Set One); Requests for Admission (Set One); and Requests for Production (Set One). (Chun Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. 1-2.) Plaintiff Angelina Barron served Liao with Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two) on April 15, 2024. (Id., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 2-3.)

On May 20, 2024, Defendant Liao served objection-only responses to the Form Interrogatories; the Special Interrogatories (Set One); the Requests for Admission (Set One); and the Requests for Production (Set One). (Id., ¶¶ 3-4 & Exhs. 3-5.) Defendant Liao served objection-only responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and the Requests for Production (Set Two) on June 7. (Id., ¶ 5 & Exhs. 4, 6.)

On July 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed these three motions to compel further responses. Plaintiffs also seek sanctions. Liao filed oppositions on July 25, and Plaintiffs filed replies on July 31 and August 1.

The Court conducted an Informal Discovery Conference on July 31.

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).)

“On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, 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 any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)

“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 further response, 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., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

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

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission.

As a threshold matter, the motions are brought on behalf of both Plaintiffs, but the discovery was propounded only by Plaintiff Angelina Barron. Plaintiff Rheianne Marquez cannot enforce or obtain relief regarding discovery propounded by another party.

As to Plaintiff Angelina Barron, she has shown that the objections asserted by Liao are without merit. Indeed, in his opposition, Liao does not contend otherwise. Rather, all that Liao argues (through his counsel) is that sanctions should not be imposed because counsel has not been unable to communicate with Liao.

Be that as it may, the motions to compel further responses are granted in their entirety. Plaintiff Barron propounded this discovery in March and April, and she is entitled to substantive, code-complaint responses. She has not received any such responses to date.

As to sanctions, the Court grants Plaintiff Barron’s request in part. Sanctions are mandatory under these provisions of the Civil Discovery Act unless the Court finds that the party or attorney subject to sanctions acted with “substantial justification” or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction “unjust.” As to Defendant Liao, he has not acted with substantial justification, and the imposition of sanctions would not be unjust. He is represented by counsel and has an obligation to remain in communication with his counsel and to comply with the provisions of the Civil Discovery Act; it is not substantially justified for him to evade his obligations under the Civil Discovery Act by failing to communicate with counsel, and it is not unjust under these circumstances to impose monetary sanctions against him. As to counsel, however, the Court finds that on this record and under these circumstances, the imposition of sanctions against counsel would be unjust.

Given the relatively straightforward nature of these motions, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $810, calculated based on 2.5 hours of attorney work for each motion multiplied by a reasonable rate of $300 per hour for work of this nature, plus the filing fee of $60.

Conclusion

To the extent that any relief is sought by or on behalf of Plaintiff Rheianne Marquez, it is denied.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Angelina Barron’s motions to compel further responses to discovery in their entirety.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Ruijie Liao to serve verified, code complaint, further responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One); Special Interrogatories (Set One); Special Interrogatories (Set Two); Requests for Admission (Set One); Requests for Production (Set One); and Requests for Production (Set Two) within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Ruijie Liao to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff Angelina Barron under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $2,430 within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.