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

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

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     January 20, 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 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SANCTIONS ONLY)

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

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This was a petition for writ of mandamus filed on December 20, 2020.  In his First Amended Complaint, filed on December 6, 2022, Plaintiff now alleges that Defendants 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 requests sanctions for failure to provide adequate responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) propounded to Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

            Plaintiff requests sanctions for failure to provide adequate responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) propounded to Defendant.

Plaintiff filed this motion on November 28, 2022, seeking to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) propounded to Defendant, and for sanctions. On January 13, 2022, at a hearing on a separate discovery motion, the parties reported that they had reached a resolution as to the responses to the Special Interrogatories. The Court therefore advanced the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories to that date and denied it as moot. (January 13, 2022 Minute Order.) However, at the request of Plaintiff, the Court left this matter on calendar for this date to address the issue of sanctions only. (Id.) No further briefing was ordered.

Legal Standard

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 2031.310(h) 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.

Analysis

            Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,520. Plaintiff initially requested sanctions in the amount of $4,725, based on five hours of attorney time actually billed at $675 per hour in connection with the moving papers, plus an additional 2 anticipated hours reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply, plus a $60 filing fee. (Declaration of David Lopez ISO Mot. ¶ 3.) Thus, $3,345 was the total amount actually billed at the time the motion was filed. However, in Plaintiff’s reply declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel states that the anticipated hours had since been billed and an additional $60 filing fee incurred, and requested an additional $2,085 based on this amount plus an additional anticipated hour. (Declaration of David Lopez ISO Reply ¶ 3.) Thus, according to the sworn declarations of Plaintiff’s counsel, a total of $5,520 was actually billed.

            The Court first turns to address whether sanctions against Defendant or its counsel are warranted in this context. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 states:

(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220.) Defendant’s responses, as set forth in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, do not remotely comply with the requirements of this section. For example, Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 4 asked for Defendant to identify any and all documents concerning any Franchise Agreement for Official Police Tow Services between Defendant and any vehicle towing business from January 1, 2015 through the present. (Separate Statement p.2:6-9.) Defendant responded “[t]he only documents are the Franchise Agreement and Conditional Use Permit and related documents. Responding party reserves the right to supplement these responses.” (Id. p.2:10-12.) A response naming “related documents” is not complete and straightforward, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure when the respondent is directly asked to identify all responsive documents.

            The remainder of Defendant’s responses continue in this vein. As another example, in response to Special Interrogatory No. 10, which asks for Defendant to state the towing fee schedule for all towing businesses doing business within the boundaries of Baldwin Park, Defendant stated “Franchise Agreement. Responding party reserves the right to supplement these responses.” (Separate Statement p.4:4-9.) This response is similarly incomplete and inadequate on its face. Other responses provided by Defendant are entirely indefensible, such as Defendant’s response to Special Interrogatory No. 12. In response to that interrogatory, which asked how Defendant determines the fee schedule to be used by all towing businesses doing business within the boundaries of the City of Baldwin Park, Defendant stated “Unknown at this time. Responding party reserves the right to supplement these responses.” (Separate Statement p.6:5-9.) A response from a municipality that it does not know how its own fee schedule is determined is neither credible nor code-compliant.

            Based on the foregoing, had the Motion to Compel Further Responses been brought before the Court on its merits, the Court would have certainly ordered further responses and found sanctions to be warranted for misuse of the discovery process and opposition of a motion without substantial justification. This analysis is complicated by Defendant’s agreement to supplement the responses, as stated to the Court on January 13. However, Defendant stood on its responses to these interrogatories, as well as the remainder of Plaintiff’s discovery, until the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories on January 6, 2022, ordering further responses to be provided and ordering sanctions against Defendant’s counsel only. (January 6, 2022 Minute Order.) Only then did Defendant’s counsel express willingness to provide further responses. It should have been apparent that these responses were not sufficient from the outset, without requiring the Court’s intervention to establish that the City of Baldwin Park is bound by the requirements of the Civil Discovery Act just as any other litigant.

That said, 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.) In the Court’s view, the adequacy of these responses and the failure to fully investigate appears to be properly laid at the feet of Defendant’s counsel, who drafted these responses, rather than Defendant itself. The Court therefore concludes that sanctions would be inappropriate against Defendant itself. As sanctions are not available against Defendant’s counsel for inadequate notice, the Court therefore cannot award sanctions to Plaintiff in connection with this motion.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  January 20, 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.