Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV14590, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14590    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 24, 2025                 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Joshua Lee Miller v. Gayatri Hospitality, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV14590           

(1)   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2)   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(3)   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(4)   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Classic Motor Inn

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Joshua Lee Miller (Non-oppositions)

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a personal injury action that was filed on June 22, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries from bedbugs while staying at premises owned by Defendants.

Defendant Classic Motor Inn moves to compel further responses to discovery requests, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Classic Motor Inn moves to compel further responses to discovery requests, and for sanctions. As Plaintiff has filed formal statements of non-opposition to each of the motions at issue, the Court will order Plaintiff to provide further responses.

As to the issue of sanctions, 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, requests for production, or requests for admission against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d); 2031.310(h); 2033.290(d).) 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, however, the record indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel has lost contact with the client and recently learned that Plaintiff is now homeless, which would naturally hinder his ability to provide further substantive responses. (Declaration of Tara Farkhondeh ISO Mot. ¶ 11.) In such a circumstance, the imposition of sanctions would work an injustice, as it is not apparent that Plaintiff could feasibly have provided further responses ahead of the motion. The Court therefore declines to award sanctions.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production are GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 24, 2025                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.