Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 20STCP04198 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCP04198, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCP04198 Hearing Date: January 6, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: January 6, 2023 TRIAL DATE: June 27, 2023

CASE: Long Z. Liu v. City of Baldwin Park, et al.

CASE NO.: 20STCP04198

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Long Z. Liu

RESPONDING PARTY(S): City of Baldwin Park, erroneously sued as Baldwin Park Police Department and Baldwin Park City Hall

CASE HISTORY:

· 12/20/20: Petition filed

· 12/06/22: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This was a petition for writ of mandamus. Plaintiff now alleges that Defendant engaged in a criminal conspiracy to illegally tow vehicles and force their owners to pay extortionate fees to retrieve the vehicles from impoundment. Plaintiff alleges that he was personally injured and his civil rights violated when his vehicle was allegedly unlawfully towed.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories propounded to Defendant, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is GRANTED. Defendant is to provide code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,760 against Defendant alone and denied as against defense counsel. Payment is to be made within 30 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General propounded to Defendant.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(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[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Timing:

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be served “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410

On September 27, 2022, the parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference to attempt to resolve outstanding disputes regarding multiple sets of discovery, including the interrogatories at issue here. Pursuant to an oral stipulation by the parties, the Court ordered that supplemental responses were to be provided by Defendant on or before October 11, 2022. (September 27, 2022 Minute Order.) The Court further ordered that, whether supplemental responses were provided or not, Plaintiff would have 45 days from October 11, 2022 to file a motion to compel further responses to discovery. 45 days from October 11, 2022 was November 25, 2022, a Court holiday. The deadline was therefore extended to November 28, 2022, the following Monday, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 12. This motion was served on November 25, 2022 and filed on November 28, 2022. (Proof of Service.) The motion is therefore timely.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300 (b)(1).)

The Declaration of John B. Byerly filed in support of the motion states that Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer regarding these responses by sending an e-mail at 1:16 AM on Thanksgiving, demanding supplemental responses by 7:00 AM the next day, Friday, November 25. (Declaration of John B. Byerly ISO Mot. ¶¶ 3, 5.) A single email in the early hours of the morning of the Thanksgiving holiday demanding a response by the morning after the Thanksgiving holiday is not, by any measure, a good-faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented by this motion.

Plaintiff states in the reply papers, however, that Plaintiff’s counsel also attempted to meet and confer with Defendant on November 16, 2022, and purportedly made “numerous phone calls” to attempt to resolve this issue. (See Declaration of David Lopez ISO Reply ¶ 4, Reply Exh. A.) This information should have been presented in the initial verified declaration made under penalty of perjury, and not in a declaration in support of the reply brief. The Lopez Declaration states that Defendant did not respond to either of the attempts by Plaintiff to meet and confer regarding the deficient discovery responses. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated that a reasonable and good faith attempt was made to resolve this dispute informally before filing this motion. Plaintiff has thus substantially complied with the statutory meet and confer requirements.

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – General Nos. 12.4, 12.6, 14.1, and 14.2.

1. Form Interrogatory No. 12.4

Form Interrogatory No. 12.4 seeks information regarding any photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any component of the incident or Plaintiff’s injuries, and, if so, the quantity of data, its contents, the date of recording, the contact information of the person who made the recording or photograph, and the contact information of any individual in possession of a copy of the recording or photograph. (Separate Statement p. 2:6-14.) Defendant’s response was to state that “No one from the City knows of any photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT as that term is defined in the Amended Complaint or as understood by the City.” (Id. p. 2:15-17.)

Plaintiff contends this response is deficient because it does not detail the steps taken to investigate readily available resources to obtain, for example, police officer body camera footage and is evasive. In opposition, Defendant contends that this is a full and complete response, and no further response is required. The Court disagrees. At a minimum, Defendant is required to undertake a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).) Where, as alleged here, police officers were involved in the alleged incident (FAC ¶¶ 41-57), a reasonable and good-faith effort would have entailed an inquiry as to the existence of any recordings by those officers at the scene. This response is evasive, and a further response should be compelled.

2. Form Interrogatory No. 12.6

Form Interrogatory No. 12.6 seeks information regarding any report made by any person concerning the incident, including background information of the person making the report, the date of the report and the type of report made, and the contact information of the person for whom the report was made, and for whomever is in possession of a copy of the report. (Separate Statement p. 3:11-18.) In response, Defendant stated that “No one from the City has made a report concerning the INCIDENT as that term is defined in the Complaint or as understood by the City.” (Id. p. 3:19-20.) Plaintiff contends this response is deficient because it does not detail the steps taken to investigate readily available resources to obtain any police reports that were made and is evasive. In opposition, Defendant contends that this is a full and complete response, and no further response is required. The Court disagrees. At minimum, Defendant is required to undertake a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other national persons or organizations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).) Where, as alleged here, police officers were involved in the incident as alleged (FAC ¶¶ 41-57), a reasonable and good-faith effort would have entailed an inquiry as to the existence of any reports by those officers at the scene. This response is evasive, and a further response should be compelled.

3. Form Interrogatory Nos. 14.1 and 14.2

Form Interrogatory No. 14.1 asks whether the respondent contends that any person involved in the incident violated any law and that the violation was the proximate cause of the incident, and, if so, state the contact information of the person who committed the violation and the law violated. (Separate Statement p. 4:13-17.) Defendant’s only response was “Yes. Plaintiff.” (Id. p.4:18-19.)

Form Interrogatory No. 14.2 asks whether any person was charged with a violation of any law as a result of the incident, and, if so, provide that person’s contact information, the law allegedly violation, whether a plea was entered in response to the citation and, if so, what plea was entered, and the contact information of the court or administrative agency, the parties, and the case number. (Separate Statement p. 5:15-22.) In response, Defendant stated that the City believes that Plaintiff was cited for “The City Municipal Code related to vehicles.” (Separate Statement p. 5:22-27.)

Plaintiff contends that these responses are wholly inadequate and evasive, as they do not indicate that any investigation was conducted into whether any violations were committed by the police officers present at the scene. Defendant contends that this is a full and complete response and no further response is required. This argument is not well-taken. Defendant is obligated to undertake a reasonable and good-faith investigation to obtain the information sought in these interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).) It is apparent from these responses that Defendant did not do so, as Defendant could not even set forth what portions of the Baldwin Park Municipal Code that Plaintiff was cited for violating. The notion that the City of Baldwin Park cannot reasonably determine which of its own ordinances were violated is not plausible. Further, where, as alleged here, police officers were involved in the alleged incident (FAC ¶¶ 41-57), a reasonable and good-faith effort would have entailed an inquiry as to whether their conduct constituted a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation. This response is evasive, and a further response should be compelled.

4. Defendant’s Argument in Opposition

Defendant argues that it has no duty to investigate the merits of Plaintiff’s claim because, according to Defendant, the First Amended Complaint does not allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act. Defendant appears to be operating under the mistaken impression that an alleged deficiency in the pleadings that has not been litigated by demurrer, motion to strike, or motion for summary judgment or adjudication somehow relieves Defendant from its obligations to make a reasonable and good-faith effort to obtain the information sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).) Not so. Defendant’s status as a municipal entity notwithstanding, Defendant is obligated to engage in the discovery process with the same diligence as any other litigant with respect to any claims pending at the time discovery is conducted. At minimum, when the First Amended Complaint alleges the presence of police officers at the scene, as it does here (see FAC ¶¶ 41-57), Defendant is required by the Code of Civil Procedure to undertake a reasonable and good faith inquiry to determine whether there is video footage of the incident alleged, whether any reports were made, and whether the officers violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses to these interrogatories.

Request for Sanctions

Both parties request sanctions in connection with this motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose monetary sanctions on any attorney engaging in the misuse of the discovery process by requiring that attorney to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d) requires the Court to impose sanctions against any party 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.

As Plaintiff is the prevailing party on this motion, Plaintiff is the only party potentially entitled to sanctions. Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $5,520. In its notice of motion, Plaintiff sought sanctions of $4,785 against “Defendants and their counsel,” but failed to identify any counsel who should be subject to sanctions. As a result of this inadequate notice, no sanctions may be awarded against defense counsel. (Blumenthal v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal. App. 3d 317, 320.) The question then is whether sanctions should be awarded against Defendant and, if so, in what amount. The Court concludes that Defendant’s failure to conduct the necessary inquiry and provide full responses to Plaintiff’s discovery was done without substantial justification so sanctions must be granted. But the amount of sanctions sought is excessive in light of the straightforward moving papers that were necessary to secure the relief sought. Accordingly, the Court awards attorneys’ fees for four hours of time at $675 per hour, plus a $60 filing fees, for total sanctions of $2,760 to be paid by Defendants alone.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is GRANTED. Defendant is to provide code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,760 against Defendant alone and denied as against defense counsel. Payment is to be made within 30 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2023 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.