Case Number: 18STCV03133 Hearing Date: February 18, 2020 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: (3) Motions to Compel Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Krista Lynn Taylor and Roderick Taylor

Resp. Party: Defendant Lisa Hankin

Plaintiffs’ three motions to compel initial discovery responses are DENIED as moot.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions against Defendant and her counsel is DENIED.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

I. All three memorandums and supporting declarations are substantially the same, so this write-up cites to the MPA for the form interrogatories and the Leinbech declaration.

II. There have been far-too-many discovery disputes in this matter. The Court has previously told both counsel that it believes that they both are playing games that are not in the best interests of the clients. The Court urges all counsel to re-read the Los Angeles Superior Court, Local Rules, Appendix 3.A: “Guidelines for Civility in Litigation.”

BACKGROUND:

On October 31, 2018, Plaintiff Krista Lynn Taylor commenced this action. On February 4, 2019, Plaintiffs Krista Lynn Taylor and Roderick Taylor filed the first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Lisa Hankin for (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; and (3) breach of bailment.

Plaintiffs allege that they were the owners of a show horse named Bravado and entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant whereby Bravado was leased to Defendant for the term of one year. (FAC, ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiffs allege that due to misuse, mishandling, and/or poor care, Bravado was severely injured, and Defendant failed to notify Plaintiffs and failed to follow the express provisions of the lease regarding any medical care rendered to Bravado. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-22.)

On April 2, 2019, Defendant Hankin filed a cross-complaint against Karazissis Brothers, Inc., Cassandra Krazissis, and Lisa Winn for (1) total implied indemnity; (2) equitable contribution; and (3) declaratory relief.

On July 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed amendments to the FAC to substitute DOE defendants for Karazissis Brothers, Inc., Cassandra Karazissis, and Nick Karazissis.

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ three motions to compel discovery responses from Defendant to their second set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for admissions.

ANALYSIS:

A. Relevant Law

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom requests for production are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260(a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

There is no meet and confer requirement or time limit for bringing a motion to compel initial discovery responses, and the moving party need only show that the discovery was properly propounded and a timely response was not served. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 410-411; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

B. Discussion

1. Motions to Compel

On December 10, 2019, Plaintiffs served their second set of discovery seeking responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for admission. (Leinbach Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.)

Two days after the responses were due, on January 16, 2020, Defendant’s counsel requested an extension to respond to the discovery requests. (Leinbach Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. B.) Defendant’s counsel requested an extension until January 31, 2020 due to her trial obligations for another matter. (Leinbach Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. B.)

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel granted an extension until January 27, 2020, on the condition that the responses be provided without objection. (Leinbech Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant’s counsel declined this offer and instead stated that because an unacceptable condition was placed on the extension, she would serve responses containing only objections on January 17, 2020 and would follow up with further responses after her trial. (Leinbech Decl., Ex. D.)

On January 17, 2020, Defendant’s counsel served all parties with written responses, which contained only objections, but were served with the intent of serving subsequent verified responses with the information sought by Plaintiffs. (Brown Decl., ¶ 16; Ex. A.)

On January 30, 2020, Defendant’s counsel served all parties with complete, verified, responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Brown Decl., ¶ 19; Wallace Decl., Ex. B.)

Defendant served verified responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for admission after the motions were filed, but prior to the hearing.

The three motions to compel initial responses to the requests for admission, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories are DENIED as moot.

2. Sanctions

Plaintiffs request an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and her counsel of record, Lisa Brown, Esq., in the amount of $5,414.00, for their misuse of the discovery process pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, et seq. (FROG Memorandum, p. 2:1-3.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, (d) defines a misuse of the discovery process to include failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. If a party provides the requested discovery after the motion is filed and prior to the hearing such that the motion is moot, the court may nevertheless award sanctions in favor of the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Given the circumstances regarding Defendant’s request for an extension and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s response, the Court declines to award sanctions against Defendant and her counsel.

Plaintiffs’ request for an award of sanctions is DENIED.