Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 21STCV33923 2022-11-08 Tentative Ruling

On June 1, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s discovery motions and awarded sanctions. The Court ordered Long Spring Freight, LLC and Grace Hsiao Hui (collectively, “Defendants”) to provide responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories and requests for production, and the Court deemed RFAs admitted.

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendants’ responses to special interrogatories. Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel compliance and for terminating sanctions. Defendants did not file oppositions to any of the motions.

On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff served special interrogatories on Defendants. (Annigian Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1.) Plaintiff later granted Defendants’ request for an extension of time to respond. (Annigian Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 2.) The responses were not served by the May 6, 2022 deadline, and still had not been served by October 11, 2022. (Annigian Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10.)

When a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Defendants did not serve responses to Plaintiff’s discovery and filed no opposition to these motions. Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED, and Defendants are ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories within 10 days of this order.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $2,545.00 against Long Spring Freight, LLC and $2,060.00 against Grace Hsiao Hui. The motions and accompanying declarations are nearly identical, but with different Defendant names. Accordingly, the 3.1 hours drafting the Long Spring and the 1.6 hours drafting the Hui motion are excessive. The anticipated 1 hour for analyzing an opposition and preparing a reply for each motion is unnecessary, as the motions are unopposed. The anticipated 3 hours for attending the hearing for each motion is also excessive, as the Court posts tentative orders upon which parties may submit, will hear both motions at the same time, and strongly encourages remote attendance at hearings.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that a reasonable sanction is $760.00 against Long Spring Freight, LLC ($700.00 attorney fees plus $60.00 filing fee) and $760.00 against Grace Hsiao Hui ($700.00 attorney fees plus $60.00 filing fee), to be paid within 10 days.

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to comply with the Court’s July 1, 2022 order. (Motion at p. 5.) The Court has already ordered Defendants to produce responses to those discovery requests sees no need to repeat its order. To the extent Defendants are shown to still be out of compliance with the Court's discovery orders at the Final Status Conference or at the commencement of trial, the Court would be inclined to impose evidentiary preclusion or issue sanctions on Defendants.

Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks terminating sanctions due to Defendants’ failure to produce discovery responses, in violation of the Court’s June 1, 2022 order. (Motion at p. 3.)

A court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond to discovery, unjustifiably making unmeritorious objections to discovery, and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) “The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’ [Citation.] Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390.)

Defendants still have not provided any responses or documents after the Court’s June 1, 2022 order. (Bressler Decl. ¶ 9.) However, Defendants’ counsel appeared at the June 1, 2022 hearing on the discovery motions. (Motion at p. 2, fn. 2.) Defendants also paid the full amount of sanctions. (Bressler Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 5.) Defendants’ failure to comply with a single discovery order does not warrant striking their Answer. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that less severe sanctions would be ineffective and that terminating sanctions are warranted. Indeed, Plaintiff identifies alternative issue sanctions and evidentiary sanctions that could be issued, but are not properly noticed or sought via this motion. (Motion at pp. 4-5.)

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court