Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 21STCV07164, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV07164, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07164 Hearing Date: February 7, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: February 7, 2025 TRIAL DATE: April 29, 2025

CASE: Americo Financial Life and Annuity Ins. Co. v. Michelle Lyn Smallwood, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV07164

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant-in-Interpleader Ruby Freeman as successor-in-interest for Victor Daigle.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 02/04/25

CASE HISTORY:

· 02/23/21: Complaint filed.

· 08/28/23: Cross-Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for statutory interpleader to deposit disputed proceeds from a set of annuity contracts.

Defendant-in-Interpleader Ruby Freeman as successor-in-interest for Victor Daigle moves to compel responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant Michelle Smallwood, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Ruby Freeman’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Defendant Smallwood is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to the requests for production within 30 days of this order.

Defendant Freeman’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant-in-Interpleader Ruby Freeman as successor-in-interest for Victor Daigle moves to compel responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant Michelle Smallwood, and for sanctions.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond, a party making the request may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that discovery requests were properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Analysis

Defendant Daigle served requests for production on Defendant Smallwood via mail on June 14, 2024. (Declaration of Joshua M. LeVasseur ISO Mot. ¶ 2; Exh. 1.) To date, no response has been received. (Id. ¶ 4.) Moving Defendant is therefore entitled to an order compelling responses to the discovery requests.

Sanctions

Moving Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,911 against Defendant Smallwood for failing to respond to the requests.

Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he 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. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c); 2030.300(d); 2031.300 (c); 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Here, Moving Defendant seeks $1,911 in sanctions against Defendant Smallwood, grounded in one-third of a total 8.1 hours expended plus one anticipated hour in connection with all of the discovery disputes in this action, at an hourly rate of $630. (LeVasseur Decl. ¶ 12.) Although Moving Defendant specified the target and the type of sanctions in the Notice of Motion, Moving Defendant did not state the amount of sanctions sought. (See Notice of Motion.) Moreover, the record demonstrates that Defendant Smallwood was responsive to the moving party’s correspondence but repeatedly claimed various illnesses as the basis for her delay in responding to the discovery. (Id. Exhs. 2-6.) Although the moving Defendant is certainly entitled to compel responses, the Court is hesitant to impose monetary sanctions where the record contains uncontested statements by the responding party disclosing medical causes for the failure to respond. The Court therefore declines to award sanctions at this juncture.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant Ruby Freeman’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Defendant Smallwood is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to the requests for production within 30 days of this order.

Defendant Freeman’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2025 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court