Case Number: 18STCV04807 Hearing Date: March 06, 2020 Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

JOSH A. GOSLIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

18STCV04807

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: March 6, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendant County of Los Angeles

Responding Party: Plaintiffs John A. Goslin, Stacey Goslin, and Danielle Bain

(1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

(2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

(3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Danielle Bani is ordered to serve on defendant further supplemental response to defendant’s Form Interrogatory No. 8.7, within 15 days.

Plaintiffs are ordered to serve on defendant further supplemental responses to defendant’s Form Interrogatory No. 8.8, within 15 days.

Each plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney of record are ordered to pay sanctions to defendant County of Los Angeles in the amount of $495 within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

On November 13, 2018, plaintiffs John A. Goslin, Stacey Goslin, and Danielle Bain filed a complaint against LA County Sheriff’s Department and Jaime Alvarez Ruiz for negligence. Plaintiffs allege that on October 10, 2017, John Goslin was the driver of a 2015 Toyota Camry and the other plaintiffs were the passengers when they were stopped on Arbor Vitae Street at the intersection of Airport Blvd. At the same time, defendant Ruiz was driving a 1997 Chevrolet Tahoe in a westerly direction on Arbor Vitae St. At the same time, defendant LA County Sheriff’s Dept. was engaged in a high-speed pursuit of defendant Ruiz. Ruiz entered the intersection of Airport Blvd., under a red light, while being pursued. Ruize’s vehicle collided with another vehicle travelling in a southerly direction on Airport Blvd. The impact caused Ruiz’s vehicle to spin out of control and collide with plaintiffs’ vehicle. The force of the impact caused plaintiffs’ vehicle to collide with another vehicle.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

45-Day Rule: This motion must be served within 45 days after service of the response in question (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, or fax; see CCP § 1013); otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further response to the CCP §2031.010 demand. CCP §§2031.310(c), 2016.050; see Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 736, 745. The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410. The parties, however, can also agree in writing on a specific later date by which to file the motion to compel. CCP §2031.310(c).

Meet-and-Confer Requirement: The motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a declaration showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court (so-called “meet and confer”). CCP §§2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).

Separate Statement: Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request shall be accompanied by a separate statement. This includes a motion to compel further responses to demand for inspection of documents or tangible things. CRC Rule 3.1020(a)(3).

Interrogatories

CCP §2030.300 states: “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. . . . (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. . . .”

DISCUSSION

Defendant County of Los Angeles requests that the court order plaintiffs Josh Goslin, Stacy Goslin, and Danielle Bain to provide verifications to the County’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and to provide supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory No. 8.8 (all three plaintiffs) and No. 8.7 (as to Danielle)

Defendant explains that on May 3, 2019, it propounded discovery requests on plaintiffs. Plaintiffs requested a two-week extension, which was granted, and plaintiffs served objections and no substantive responses. Defense counsel met and conferred and plaintiffs served responses on August 9, 2019. Defendant asserts that they were not verified and were incomplete and evasive and asserted unmeritorious objections. Defense counsel met and conferred. Plaintiffs served supplemental responses on October 25, 2019 but were not verified. On November 22, 2019, defense counsel met and conferred and requested further supplemental responses by December 2, 2019. On December 10, 2019, defense counsel again attempted to meet and confer. Plaintiff’s counsel informed defense counsel that plaintiffs would provide verifications by December 20, 2019, which they did not do.

In opposition, plaintiffs contend that they serve verifications on December 26, 2019. The motion is MOOT as to compelling verifications.

Defendant seeks further supplemental responses to Nos. 8.7 and 8.8.

Form Interrogatory No. 8.7 (as to Danielle) requests: “State the total income you have lost to date as a result of the Incident and how the amount was calculated.” She asserted several objections, of which none have merit. In the statement of damages, she claims $200,000 in loss earnings. Is this the amount she still claims and how was this amount calculated?

Form Interrogatory No. 8.8 (as to all three plaintiffs) requests: “Will you lose income in the future as result of the incident? If so, state (a) the facts upon which you base this contention; (b) an estimate of the amount: (c) an estimate of how long you will be unable to work; and (d) how the claim for future income is calculated.”

Defendant asserts that plaintiffs are claiming over $20 million in damages, including $5.5 million in loss of future earning capacity. Plaintiffs responded “yes” and that they have sustained physical injuries that have caused limitations. As to (b)-(d), they responded “Plaintiff is uncertain at this time, as this would require an expert opinion.”

The court finds that these responses are deficient. In the statement of damages, plaintiffs are claiming $5.5 million in loss of future earning capacity. How was the $5.5 million calculated? Are plaintiffs still claiming that amount? Plaintiffs have not shown why they cannot provide estimates.

The motions are GRANTED.

Sanctions

Under CCP § 2023.030(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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel further responses against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless 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.” CCP §2031.310(h).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(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.”

Defendant requests monetary sanctions against each plaintiff and each plaintiff’s attorneys of record, Parris Law Firm in the amount of $1,325.50. Defense counsel contends that he incurred 24.1 hours at $165/hr. for all three motions, for a total of $3,976.50. The court finds that sanctions are warranted. Verifications were not provided until after the motions were filed. The court finds that $495 ($165/hr. x 3 hrs.) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against each plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys of record.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.