Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2022-00002352-CL-PA-CTL 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00002352-CL-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 06, 2023

09/08/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Limited PI/PD/WD - Auto Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00002352-CL-PA-CTL BRANDON VS HANNA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 07/13/2023

Tentative Rulings on Motions to Compel Discovery

Brandon v. Hanna, Case No. 2022-02352 Sept. 8, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a personal injury case arising out of an automobile accident on June 5, 2020 in a parking lot in El Cajon. The Judicial Council form complaint was filed in early 2022. Service had to be effected via publication, and defendant did not answer until November of 2022. ROA 16, 27. The court was finally able to set the case for trial in December of 2023. ROA 31-35.

Defense counsel scheduled one motion to compel, but filed three. ROA 37-40. They relate to a document demand and two sets of interrogatories. The common theme is that plaintiff's counsel failed to respond at all. There is no opposition.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

'California's civil discovery process aims to unearth the truth of the case, thus facilitating settlement on the basis of the mutually expected value of the suit.' Field v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 703, 705.

B. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031 et seq. and in particular Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, a party upon whom a document demand has been served has 30 days in which to respond to same. After receiving a response to a demand for production, the party making the demand may move to compel further response to the demand if a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, a representation of the party's inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2985268 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BRANDON VS HANNA [IMAGED] 37-2022-00002352-CL-PA-CTL C. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030 et seq. and in particular Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, a party upon whom interrogatories have been served has 30 days in which to respond to same. Failure to timely do so may result in a motion to compel response to such interrogatories as well as a monetary sanction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.

D. When the Discovery Act authorizes a monetary sanction – such as Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) – the trial court must impose such a sanction unless the offending party acted with substantial justification or the imposition of the sanction would be unjust. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). However, in awarding sanctions, 'a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs...in order to reach a reasonable award.' Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc.

(2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.

3. Discussion and Rulings.

A. As an initial matter, the court notes that defendant filed three motions, but only scheduled one for hearing for today. 'Any party, or attorney for a party, who desires to have any demurrer, motion, ex parte application, or order to show cause set for hearing must reserve a hearing date through the online reservation system at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov or contact the calendar clerk for the judge assigned to the case to reserve a hearing date. Failure to reserve a date for hearing will result in the demurrer, motion, ex parte application, or order to show cause hearing not being heard.' SDSC Local Rule 2.1.19.

It appears, however, that defendant paid the filing fees for the two uncalendared motions. Accordingly, the court will consider the merits of all three motions. See Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32 ('Rigid rule following is not always consistent with a court's function to see that justice is done.'); Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Homeowner's Assn. v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 743, 758 ('The law always favors substance over form[.]').

B. The unopposed motions are granted. On December 2, 2022, defendant served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents on plaintiff. (MacKinnon Decl., ¶ 2.) No responses have been received to date. (See id. at ¶ 3.) Accordingly, plaintiff must serve verified responses without objections and produce the requested documents by September 22, 2023. Code Civ.

Proc. §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).

C. Defendant's request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff's counsel is granted in the reduced amount of $675.57 (3 hours at $165.19 per hour plus $180 in filing fees). '[W]hen a party seeking sanctions against an attorney offers sufficient evidence of a misuse of the discovery process, the burden shifts to the attorney to demonstrate that he or she did not recommend that conduct.' Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 81. Plaintiff's counsel did not submit a declaration in opposition to the motion and thus has failed to establish that he did not advise the challenged conduct. Imposition of sanctions is therefore appropriate. The sanctions must be paid by Troy P. Owens, Jr. to defendant Zaid Hanna by October 6, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2985268