Renee Yancheck vs Sandbar Restaurant et al

Case Number

21CV00800

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 04/15/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel (4)

Tentative Ruling

Renee Yancheck v. Sandbar Restaurant, et al. (Judge Sterne)

Case No. 21CV00800         

Hearing Date: April 15, 2024                                      

HEARING:              (1) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Admissions, Set One, and Request For Sanctions Against Defendant And Defendant’s Counsel

                                    (2) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request For Sanctions Against Defendant And Defendant’s Counsel

                                    (3) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request For Sanctions Against Defendant And Defendant’s Counsel

                                    (4) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents, Set One, and Request For Sanctions Against Defendant

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Renee Yancheck: Bradley S. Wallace, Thomas R. Burns, The Wallace Firm, PC, Brandon Sua, Law Offices of Brandon Sua & Associates

                             For Defendant Old Town Hospitality, LLC: Christopher M. McDonald, Zeana Zoreikat, Murchison & Cumming, LLP

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motions of plaintiff to compel further responses to plaintiff’s set one requests for admissions, set one special interrogatories, set one form interrogatories, and set one requests for production of documents are each granted, in part. The court awards sanctions in favor of plaintiff against counsel for defendant Old Town Hospitality, LLC, in the total amount of $1,840, payable to plaintiff’s counsel. Payment of sanctions is due by May 15, 2024. Except as otherwise herein granted, the motions of plaintiff are each denied as moot.

Background:

On February 26, 2021, plaintiff Renee Yancheck filed a complaint against defendant the Sandbar Restaurant (Sandbar) alleging two causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. As alleged in the complaint, the Sandbar is located at 514 State Street in Santa Barbara, California (the premises). (Compl., ¶ 7.) On March 22, 2019, while on the premises, plaintiff sustained injuries and damages when plaintiff slipped on a liquid substance at the premises. (Compl., ¶ 19.)

On June 2, 2022, plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting the name Aron Ashland (Ashland) for the fictitious name of Doe 1.

On October 13, 2022, plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting the name Sharkeez Restaurant Group, LLC, (Sharkeez) for the fictitious name of Doe 2.

On January 6, 2023, plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting the name Newport Sharkeez, Inc. (Newport Sharkeez) for the fictitious name of Doe 3.

On May 8, 2023, plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting the name Old Town Hospitality, LLC, (Old Town) for the fictitious name of Doe 4.

The default of Ashland, Sharkeez, and Newport Sharkeez was entered as requested by plaintiff on August 8, 2023.

On September 18, 2023, Old Town filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-five affirmative defenses.

On February 21, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to compel Old Town to provide further responses to each of plaintiff’s set one requests for admissions (the RFA motion), a motion to compel Old Town to provide further responses to each of plaintiff’s special interrogatories (the SI motion), a motion to compel Old Town to provide further responses to each of plaintiff’s set one form interrogatories (the FI motion), and a motion to compel Old Town to provide further responses to each of plaintiff’s set one requests for production (the RFP motion) (collectively, the motions). In each motion, plaintiff seeks the imposition of monetary sanctions on Old Town and its counsel in the amount of $1,060.

In support of each motion, plaintiff submits separate but nearly identical declarations of its counsel, Thomas R. Burns (Burns). Each of the Burns declarations include substantially similar if not identical information in identically numbered paragraphs regarding service of the discovery requests presently at issue, Old Town’s objections to the requests, and plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer regarding Old Town’s objections to the discovery requests. In addition, attached to each declaration are exhibits bearing identical labels notwithstanding that the exhibits are different. The court will refer to paragraphs within and exhibits attached to the Burns declarations collectively for ease of reference.

Burns declares that on October 20, 2023, plaintiff served on Old Town plaintiff’s set one special interrogatories (the SI), form interrogatories (the FI), requests for production of documents (the RFP), and requests for admissions (the RFA) (collectively, the discovery requests). (Burns Decl., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) Old Town served responses to the discovery requests on January 2, 2024. (Burns Decl., ¶ 3 & Exhs. B.)

The responses of Old Town to the discovery requests contained identical boilerplate objections but no substantive responses. (Burns Decl., ¶¶ 3 & 5.) On January 2, 2024, Burns corresponded with counsel for Old Town by email, requesting substantive further responses to the discovery requests by January 9, 2024. (Burns Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. C.) Old Town never responded to Burns’ email correspondence and has not provided further responses to the discovery requests. (Burns. Decl., ¶ 6.)

Old Town opposes the motions of plaintiff. In support of each of its oppositions to the motions, Old Town submits separate but nearly identical declarations of its counsel, Zeana Zoreikat (Zoreikat). Each of the Zoreikat declarations also include substantially similar if not identical information in identically numbered paragraphs, and attach different exhibits bearing identical labels. The court will also refer to the paragraphs and exhibits within and attached to the Zoreikat declaration collectively for ease of reference.

Old Town does not dispute that the discovery requests were served by plaintiff on October 20, 2023, that Old Town served objections to the discovery requests on January 2, 2023, or that Burns sent email correspondence to Old Town on January 2, 2023, regarding the objections of Old Town to the discovery requests. (Zoreikat Decl., ¶¶ 1, 2 & Exhs. A & B.)

Zoreikat declares that on January 24, 2024, Old Town sent to plaintiff written correspondence regarding plaintiff’s further responses to Old Town’s discovery requests. (Zoreikat Decl., ¶ 2.) On February 7, 2024, plaintiff requested an extension of time to provide further responses to Old Town’s discovery requests but did not discuss Old Town’s responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Zoreikat Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. C.) Zoreikat further asserts that on March 29, 2023, Old Town served substantive responses to the RFA, SI, FI, and RFP at issue in the present motions. (Zoreikat Decl., ¶ 4 & Exhs. D.)

Analysis:

Old Town contends that, apart from email correspondence sent by plaintiff’s counsel on January 2, 2024, plaintiff did not attempt to address Old Town’s responses to the discovery requests informally despite counsel’s communications regarding plaintiff’s further responses to Old Town’s discovery. Old Town asserts that although plaintiff had several opportunities to address concerns regarding its responses to the discovery requests at issue, plaintiff chose not to do so. For this reason, Old Town asserts that plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer regarding Old Town’s responses to the discovery requests were deficient.

A motion for an order compelling a further response to interrogatories, requests for admission, or an inspection demand must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration which “state[s] facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040; 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) “This rule is designed ‘to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order....’ [Citation.] This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes. [Citations.]” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.)

The record of correspondence offered by the parties demonstrates that plaintiff initiated an effort to informally resolve the purported issues with the Old Town objections to the discovery requests by asserting that the use of “boilerplate” objections is sanctionable and by requesting substantive further responses from Old Town. (Burns Decl., Exhs. C.) Available information further demonstrates that Old Town did not respond to plaintiff’s initial correspondence.

Notwithstanding that the parties corresponded regarding discovery matters unrelated to the present dispute, Old Town’s apparent failure to respond to plaintiff’s initial efforts to resolve the purported issues with Old Town’s objections to the discovery requests demonstrates that the parties reached an impasse such that additional efforts by plaintiff were unlikely to bear fruit. (See Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1293-1294.) For these reasons, the court finds that plaintiff has, for present purposes, made a sufficient showing of a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented by the motions.

Available information and evidence also shows that on March 29, 2024, Old Town served supplemental responses to the discovery requests at issue in the motions. Based on the court’s cursory review of the supplemental responses served by Old Town on March 29, 2024, the court notes that while Old Town has asserted additional or similar objections to the FI, SI, RFA, and RFP, Old Town has also provided substantive responses to the discovery requests.

When, as here, a responding party provides discovery requested in a motion to compel and the moving party proceeds with the motion, the court has substantial discretion to determine how to rule on the motion based on the circumstances of the case. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.) For example, the court may take the motion off-calendar, deny the motion as moot, or narrow the scope of the motion to the issue of sanctions. (Id. at p. 409; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Considering the totality of the circumstances present here and to preserve judicial efficiency by avoiding piecemeal rulings, the court will at this stage of the proceedings deny each of the motions to the extent plaintiff seeks to compel Old Town to provide further responses to the FI, SI, RFA, and RFP, as moot. Any disputes regarding the responses to the FI, SI, RFA, or RPD served by Old Town on March 29, 2024, may be raised in a procedurally appropriate future motion provided the parties fully meet and confer in good faith.

In the notice of each of the motions, plaintiff requests an award of sanctions against Old Town and its counsel in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $1,060. Based on the information and evidence offered by plaintiff, it is the court’s understanding that plaintiff seeks an award of sanctions against Old Town and its counsel in the total sum of $4,240 representing the total amount of fees and costs incurred by plaintiff to prepare the RFA motion, the SI motion, the FI motion, and the RFP motion.

“The 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) In addition, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to [a discovery request], 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)
 

As further discussed above, despite plaintiff’s effort to communicate with Old Town regarding the issues presented in the motions, Old Town did not serve substantive responses to the discovery requests until March 29, 2024, over a month after plaintiff filed and served the motions. Though Old Town contends that communications broke down between the parties when the handling attorney left plaintiff’s counsel’s firm, Old Town fails to explain why this development prevented the preparation or service of substantive responses earlier, or why the departure of the handling attorney, or any other circumstance, prevented Old Town from responding to plaintiff’s initial efforts to resolve the dispute (also considering that Old Town contends the parties were concurrently discussing plaintiff’s responses to Old Town’s discovery requests.) (See Zoreikat Decl., ¶ 3.) Under the circumstances present here, and for all reasons discussed above, the court finds that an award of sanctions to compensate plaintiff for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and filing of the motions is appropriate.

Though the court finds an award of sanctions in plaintiff’s favor is warranted, “[t]he principle of reasonableness means a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested as a discovery sanction in order to reach a reasonable award.” (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.) The amount of any sanctions that may be imposed by the court needs to reflect the reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the misuse of the discovery process.

The court agrees that plaintiff incurred fees and costs to prepare and file the motions. However, based on the court’s review of the content of the RFA motion, the FI motion, the SI, motion, and the RFP motion, and the court’s experience in addressing discovery motions and attorney fee issues, the court finds that 10 hours of time to prepare the motions, review Old Town’s oppositions to the motions, and to prepare a reply, which also appears to include duplicative work, is excessive and unreasonable. Moreover, the court has no record of plaintiff having filed or served papers in reply to the oppositions filed by Old Town.

For all reasons discussed above, the court finds that 1 hour of time for each motion at attorney Burns’ reasonable hourly rate of $400 (4 x $400 = $1,600), plus $60 in filing fees incurred to file each motion ($60 x 4 = $240), totaling $460 for each motion for a grand total of $1,840, constitutes the reasonable amount of expenses, inclusive of fees and costs, incurred as a result of the filing of the RFA motion, the SI motion, the FI motion, and the RFP motion, and the misuse of the discovery process by Old Town for which monetary sanctions are appropriately awardable.

The court further notes that there exist procedural problems with the motions filed by plaintiff. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c), a separate statement must “be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule, 3.1345(c).) (Note: Undesignated rule references shall be to the California Rules of Court.) For this reason, a separate statement filed in support of a motion to compel must include, if necessary, “the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(4).)

The separate statements submitted in support of the RFA motion, the SI motion, the FI motion, and the RFP motion include capitalized words. The separate statements do not provide the definitions of these terms, which are required to enable the court to understand each discovery request at issue. Because the separate statements in support of each motion fail to provide the definitions of capitalized terms, the court must expend scarce judicial resources to locate and review other documents to determine each full request at issue. For these reasons, the separate statements submitted in support of each motion violate rule 3.1345(c).

Further, declarations must comply with the formatting requirements of the California Rules of Court. Specifically, exhibits must be electronically bookmarked in accordance with rule 3.1110. The Burns declarations filed by plaintiff do not include electronic bookmarks for the exhibits attached to each declaration. Electronic bookmarks are important to the court to find specific documents or pages in papers filed by a party.

Counsel is reminded of their obligations to comply with court rules. The court expects that the procedural deficiencies and rule violations described herein will not be repeated in any future discovery motions that may be filed by the parties in this matter.