Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV20335, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20335    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Sherry Hennington (“Hennington”) and Lorrie Irving (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on June 1, 2021 against Defendant Glen Dollarhide (“Defendant”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) breach of undivided loyalty, (3) fraud, (4) conversion, (5) intentional interference with contractual relations, (6) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, (7) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and (8) defamation.

On July 29, 2021, Hennington served on Defendant her First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Form Interrogatories – General, Set One. (Westmoreland Decls., ¶ 2, Exs. 1.) On September 3, 2021, Defendant served responses to Hennington’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Form Interrogatories – General, Set One. (Westmoreland Decls., ¶ 3, Exs. 2.) Counsel for Hennington met and conferred with Defendant concerning the asserted insufficiencies with his responses. (Westmoreland Decls., ¶ 4.)

On May 17, 2022, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). The Court’s May 17, 2022 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he parties participate in an IDC. The parties agreed and the Court ordered as follows: On or before 06/07/22, Defendant Dollarhide will serve via U.S. Mail amended responses to the First Set of General Form Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production with full and complete responses and verifications with full signatures.”

Plaintiffs indicate that on or about June 3, 2022, Defendant served amended responses to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Form Interrogatories – General, Set One. (Westmoreland Decls., ¶ 8, Ex. 6.)

Plaintiffs now move for orders compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Hennington’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Hennington’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One. Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions in connection with both motions. Defendant opposes both motions.  

Discussion

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs seek an “[o]rder to compel [Defendant] to provide further responses to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents…” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:6-7.) Plaintiffs also seek an “[o]rder to compel [Defendant] to provide further responses to the First Set of General Interrogatories.” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:6-7.)

As set forth above, the Court’s May 17, 2022 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he parties participate in an IDC. The parties agreed and the Court ordered as follows: On or before 06/07/22, Defendant Dollarhide will serve via U.S. Mail amended responses to the First Set of General Form Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production with full and complete responses and verifications with full signatures.” The Court notes that it does not issue orders to comply with its orders, so no further order is necessary or appropriate to compel compliance with the Court’s May 17, 2022 order.  

Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions against Defendant. In both of the instant motions, Plaintiffs cite to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), which provides that “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (j), 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 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.”

As an initial matter, the Court does not see why Plaintiffs cite to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h) in their motion to compel further responses to Hennington’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One. As set forth above, this provision pertains to a “motion to compel further response to a demand…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h), emphasis added.) Thus, the Court does not find that this provision is applicable to Plaintiffs’ motion pertaining to the Form Interrogatories – General, Set One.

In addition, as set forth above, the Court finds that no further order is necessary or appropriate to compel compliance with the Court’s May 17, 2022 order. The Court accordingly does not find that Defendant has unsuccessfully opposed Plaintiffs’ instant motion to compel further responses to Hennington’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Thus, the Court does not find that sanctions are warranted here under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h).

Plaintiffs also cite to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivisions (d) and (f), which provide that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to,” “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” and “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery.” However, Plaintiffs do not cite any legal authority in either of their motions supporting a request for sanctions in such circumstances.

The Court notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides in part that “the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: (a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one 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.” However, Plaintiffs do not cite this provision in either of their motions. It is thus unclear if Plaintiffs are relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.

In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), cited by Plaintiffs, provides that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:…(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” But as set forth above, Plaintiffs acknowledge that on or about June 3, 2022, Defendant served amended responses to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Form Interrogatories – General, Set One. (Westmoreland Decls., ¶ 8, Ex. 6.)[1]

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (f), also cited by Plaintiffs, provides that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:…(f) Making an evasive response to discovery.” However, Plaintiffs do not appear to argue that Defendant made “evasive” responses to the subject discovery requests.

Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for sanctions in connection with either of the instant motions.

Lastly, Defendant asserts in his opposition to the motion pertaining to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents that “the Court should impose sanctions upon Plaintiffs for serving partial pleadings for this motion, and award Defendants reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in having to oppose this motion.” (Dollarhide Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendant asserts in his opposition to the motion pertaining to the Form Interrogatories – General, Set One that “the Court should impose sanctions upon Plaintiffs for this frivolous action, and award Defendants reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in having to oppose this motion.” (Dollarhide Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court notes that it is unclear what Defendant means by “partial pleadings.” In addition, Defendant’s oppositions to the instant motions state that Defendant is appearing in pro per. Thus, it is unclear why Defendant seeks attorney’s fees. Further, Defendant does not cite to any legal authority in support of his requests for sanctions. Thus, the Court denies Defendant’s requests for sanctions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses are denied as moot. Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are denied.  

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  January 11, 2024                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court