Case Name: Morgan Hill Unified School Dist. v. Santa Clara County Board of Education, et al.
Case No.: 2015-1-CV-281545

Real Party in Interest/cross-petitioner Voices College-Bound Language Academies, Inc. (“Voices”) moves to compel petitioner and cross-defendant/respondent Morgan Hill Unified School District (the “District”) to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

I. Factual Background

This action arises out of a dispute concerning a public charter school, Voices, that recently opened in Morgan Hill. At issue is (1) whether the Santa Clara County Board of Education (the “Board”) lawfully approved the charter school and (2) if lawfully approved, the nature and extent of the public school facilities Voices is entitled to under Proposition 39 and State Board of Education implementing regulations. Morgan Hill Unified School District (the “District”), the school district in which Voices operates, initially denied Voices’ charter petition. The Board granted the school’s appeal, which is now being challenged by the District via a petition for writ of mandate. Voices filed a cross-complaint against the District challenging its alleged failure to comply with its legal obligation to allocate reasonably equivalent school facilities to charter schools under Proposition 39 (Education Code § 47614).

II. Discovery Dispute

On December 29, 2015, Voices propounded Special Interrogatories (“SI), Set One, and Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), Set One, on the District. (Declarations of S. Edward Slabach in Support of Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery (“Slabach Decl.”), ¶ 2.) The District served its responses to the foregoing requests on February 2, 2016, which were comprised of both objections and substantive responses. (Id., ¶ 3.)

After reviewing the District’s responses, counsel for Voices sent a meet and confer letter to opposing counsel expressing his client’s belief that further responses to various requests, particularly RPD Nos. 5, 6, 10 and 11 and SI Nos. 18-21, were warranted because the objections asserted in response to those requests were baseless. (Slabach Decls., ¶ 4 and Exhibits A.) Counsel for the District responded to the letter on March 14, 2016, explaining why the District believed that further responses were not warranted. (Id., ¶ 5 and Exhibits B.) Additional correspondence was exchanged between the parties on March 16, 21 and 22, via both written letter and email, with both parties largely remaining set in their initial positions. (Id., ¶¶ 6-8 and Exhibits C, D and E.)

On March 22, 2016, the District’s counsel sent an email to opposing counsel and attached to it matter purported to be supplemental responses to RPD, Set One and SI, Set One. (Slabach Decls., ¶ 9 and Exhibits F.) In the email, counsel made no reference to the specific requests which were the subject of the parties’ meet and confer efforts, but stated that “[t]hese responses address virtually all of the outstanding issues addressed in our meet and confer discussions.” (Slabach Decls., ¶ 9 and Exhibits F.) Upon review, counsel for Voices did not believe that the “supplemental” responses addressed the concerns raised in the parties’ previous discussions. Consequently, on April 1, 2016, Voices filed the instant motions to compel further responses.

On April 14, 2016, the District served its Second Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents and its Third Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories on Voices. (Declaration of John R. Yeh in Support of Opposition to Motions to Compel Further Responses (“Yeh Decl.”), ¶¶ 5, 7 and Exhibits F and H.) The following day, the District filed its opposition to Voices’ motions to compel.

On April 21, 2016, Voices filed its reply.

III. Motions to Compel Further Responses to SI and RPD

With the instant motions, Voices moves for an order compelling the District to provide further responses to RPD, Set One, Nos. 5, 6, 10 and 11, and SI, Set One, Nos. 18-21.

A. Court’s Jurisdiction to Hear Motion

As an initial procedural matter, the District contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Voices’ motion to compel because insufficient notice was provided. Voices initially filed their notices of motion on March 23, 2016, which set the hearing date for April 28, 2016, but did not file the necessary supporting papers, i.e., the memorandums, separate statements, or declarations, until April 1, 2016. In doing so, the District asserts, Voices violated Code of Civil Procedure section 1010, which provides, in pertinent part, that notice of motion must state, among other things, “the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based,” and that those papers must be served, if they have not previously been, on the party to be notified with the notice.

The District’s argument is unavailing. The authority which it cites in support of its contention that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the instant motions to compel, Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, is distinguishable in that the plaintiff in that case had filed his motions to compel beyond the 45-day time limit established by the applicable provisions of the Discovery Act. Having done so, the court was left without the authority to rule on the motions to compel other than to deny them. (Sexton, 58 Cal.App.4th at 1410.) Here, Voices’ motions to compel, even if deemed filed on the date upon which the supporting papers were filed rather than the notice of motion, were well within 45-days of when the District’s supplemental responses (i.e., the most recent responses) to the subject discovery were served. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c) and 2031.310, subd. (c).) The District otherwise cites no authority which provides that a party’s failure to file and serve the motion papers with the notice of motion divests the Court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion. Moreover, as a general matter, a court has great discretion with regards to how to treat an “incomplete motion,” i.e., a motion that does not have all of the necessary papers, including but not limited to its denial. Consequently, this argument does not compel denial of the motions to compel.

B. Effect of Service of Supplemental Responses

The District next contends that the instants motions are moot due to its service of the Second Supplemental Response to Request for Production and the Third Supplemental Response to Special Interrogatories on April 14, 2016. The Court agrees. Where responses to discovery have been served after a motion to compel them was filed, the court in its discretion may deny the motion to compel as moot. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Heathcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.) To the extent that Voices believes the District’s responses to the requests which are the subject of the instant motions are still deficient, it can file additional motions to compel further responses which expressly articulate why such responses are warranted.

Accordingly, Voices’ motions to compel are DENIED as moot.

C. Requests for Sanctions

Both parties request monetary sanctions.

1. Voices’ Request

Voices requests that the Court impose $2,000 against the District and its counsel for each motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), which provides that the court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances exist that make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. The equivalent of this provision for a motion to compel further responses to production requests is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h).

Here, because Voices’ motion to compel is denied as moot, it cannot be characterized as “successful” and therefore Voices is not entitled to sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (d), and 2031.310, subdivision (h). However, sanctions are still available under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, which provides that “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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [emphasis added].) Unlike most of the provisions authorizing sanctions in connection with motions to compel further responses, the foregoing rule is discretionary. In this instance, the Court elects to impose sanctions against the District and its counsel as it is persuaded that the District was compelled to provide further supplemental responses by the filing of the instant motions to compel.

As stated above, Voices requests that the Court impose $2,000 in sanctions per motion, which is supported by declarations from Voices’ counsel stating that he spent six hours preparing each motion at an hourly billing rate of $200. (Slabach Decls., ¶ 13.) Counsel further states that he spent one hour per motion meeting and conferring with opposing counsel, and anticipates spending an additional three hours (per motion) preparing his replies. However, neither time spent on meet and confer efforts nor anticipated time are compensable. While Voices has submitted a unified reply in support of its motion, and an additional declaration, the declaration does not indicate how many hours were actually spent preparing the reply. A sanctions request must be accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts which support the amount of sanctions being sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Having not provided the necessary facts, the amounts referenced in connection with the preparation of the reply are not compensable.

The Court is therefore left with a total of 12 hours of claimed preparation time between the two motions to compel and, in consideration of the issues raised in each, finds this amount of time to be appropriate. Consequently, Voices’ request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $2,400 (12 hrs x $200/hr).

2. The District’s Request

In its opposition, the District requests that the Court impose $2,000 in sanctions against Voices for the alleged misuse of the discovery process pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010, subdivision (b). This code section, however, does not relate to the misuse of the discovery process or sanctions for such conduct, but rather addresses the scope of discovery, generally. Consequently, it does not provide a basis upon which to impose sanctions against Voices and because no additional authority is cited as a basis for the District’s request, it is DENIED.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Voices’ motions to compel are DENIED as moot.

Voices’ related requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED IN PART. The District and its counsel shall pay $2,400 to counsel for Voices’ within 20 calendar days of this order.

The District’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.