Estate of Raphael Harper v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al

Case Number

24CV00873

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 08/06/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) Mtn for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions; 2) Mtn for Order Deeming Admitted Longs’ RFA, Set 2, to Raquel Harper; Req for Monetary Sanctions; 3) Mtn for Order Deeming Admitted Longs’ RFA, Set 2, to Estate of Raquel Harper; Req for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs Raquel Harper: Self-Represented

                                   

For Plaintiff The Estate of Raphael Harper: Unrepresented

                                   

For Defendant Longs Drug Stores California, LLC: James J. Yukevich,

Raymond H. Hua, Matthew H. Conley, Yukevich Cavanaugh

                                   

For Defendant 2973 State Street, LLC: Craig A. Parton, Kristen M. Blabey, Jeff F.

Tchakarov, Price, Postel & Parma LLP

RULING

            For the reasons set forth below:

1. The motion of Longs Drug Stores California, LLC for terminating and monetary sanctions is granted in part and denied in part.
   1. Terminating sanctions will not be imposed at this time.
   2. Raquel Harper and the Estate of Raphael Harper shall serve verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to form interrogatories set one, special interrogatories set one, and requests for production of documents set one, propounded by Longs Drug Stores California, no later than August 27, 2025.
   3. Monetary sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,000.00 in favor of Longs Drug Stores California, and against Raquel Harper and the Estate of Raphael Harper, jointly and severally, payable to counsel for Longs Drug Stores California no later than August 29, 2025.
2. The motion of Longs Drug Stores California, LLC for order deeming admitted Longs’ requests for admission, set two, to Raquel Harper, is granted. The requests are deemed admitted. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party with respect to this motion.
3. The motion of Longs Drug Stores California, LLC for order deeming admitted Longs’ requests for admission, set two, to Estate of Raphael Harper, is granted. The requests are deemed admitted. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party with respect to this motion.
4. Counsel for Longs Drug Stores California, LLC to give notice.

Background

On February 16, 2024, Plaintiffs Raquel Harper, as successor in interest to decedent Raphael Harper (Raphael), and the Estate of Raphael Harper (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (CVS), and 2973 State Street LLC (State Street), (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging two causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. (Note: Due to common surnames, the Court will refer to Raphael Harper individually by his first name. No disrespect is intended.)

As alleged in the Judicial Council form complaint, on February 16, 2022, Raphael was walking within Defendants’ premises when, suddenly and without warning, the wheels on the shopping cart Raphael was pushing adhered or stuck to an unknown substance on the floor, causing Raphael to fall forward and sustain injuries. (Compl., GN-1 & Prem.L-1.)

On April 25, 2024, Longs Drug Stores California, LLC, (Longs), answered the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-five affirmative defenses. In its answer, Longs asserts that it was erroneously sued as CVS.

Also on April 25, 2024, Longs served Plaintiffs with separate special interrogatories set one, form interrogatories set one, requests for production of documents set one, and requests for admissions set one.

On May 24, 2024, State Street answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Longs asserting six causes of action for breach of contract, and equitable and declaratory relief. State Street dismissed its cross-complaint, without prejudice, on August 16, 2024.

On December 18, 2024, the Court ruled on Longs’ motions to compel that were filed against Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to discovery. The Court ruling included:

“The Court will grant the motions to compel responses to the form interrogatories,

special interrogatories, and requests for production, and order each Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the discovery, without objection, no later than January

31, 2025.”

“With respect to the deemed admissions motions, if verified responses are provided no later than the time of the hearing on the two motions, the motions will be denied. If verified responses are not provided by the time of the hearing on these motions, the motions will be granted, and the matters set forth in the requests will be deemed admitted by each of the Plaintiffs.”

In addition to the above, monetary sanctions were ordered against Plaintiffs and in favor of Longs in the amount of $3,500.00

Plaintiffs did not provide responses to requests for admission, set one, and the one request was therefore deemed admitted.

On November 21, 2024, Longs individually served each Plaintiff with requests for admissions, set two.

Having still received no responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, the requests for production of documents, and set two of the requests for admissions:

On January 28, 2025, Longs filed the present motions for orders deeming requests for admissions, set two, admitted and for monetary sanctions.

On February 25, 2025, Longs filed the present motion for terminating sanctions and for monetary sanctions for Plaintiffs’ failure to obey the December 18, 2024, order.

On February 26, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed motions to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs.

All of the hearings were eventually scheduled for hearing on April 9, 2025. At that hearing, the motions to be relieved as counsel were granted and the remaining matters were given a continued hearing date of June 11, 2025, in order for Plaintiffs to retain new counsel.

The orders granting the motions to be relieved as counsel specifically stated that they are “effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon the client.” This requirement was also stated in the tentative ruling. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not initially file a proof of service of the signed orders. As such, he was still Plaintiffs’ counsel of record.

On June 11, 2025, the hearings on the present motions were rescheduled to July 16, 2025. On July 16, 2025, the hearings were continued to August 6, 2025, to allow for proper notice of the hearing date.

On July 18, 2025, counsel for Longs filed proof of service regarding the continued hearing date.

On July 21, 2025, Plaintiffs’ prior attorney filed proof of service of the order granting his motion to be relieved as counsel, making the order effective. Plaintiffs are now self-represented.

All parties have now been properly served the present motions and notices of hearing.

Analysis

The Court will address the three motions together.

As noted above, Longs seeks terminating and monetary sanctions in connection with Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the December 18, 2024, order to provide verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. Longs seeks to have the matters encompassed in the requests for admissions, to each Plaintiff, deemed admitted due to Plaintiffs’ failure to respond.

Sanctions available for disobeying a Court order to provide discovery responses include: (1) Monetary sanctions; (2) Issue sanctions; (3) Evidence sanctions; (4) Terminating sanctions; and (5) Contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.030.)

If a party “fails to obey an order compelling further responses to interrogatories, the Court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

“[I]f a party . . . fails to obey an order compelling inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the Court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the Court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (c).)

If a party “fails to obey an order compelling further responses to requests for admission, the Court may order that the matters involved in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (e).)

“The trial Court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’ [Citation.]” (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702.)

“While sanctions are discretionary, the term judicial discretion implies absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition, or whimsical thinking. It imports the exercise of discriminating judgment within the bounds of reason. To exercise the power of judicial discretion, all the material facts must be known and considered, together also with the legal principles essential to an informed, intelligent and just decision. [Citation.] Therefore, the Court must examine the entire record in determining whether the ultimate sanction should be imposed. [Citations.]” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796 (Deyo).)

“In exercising this discretion, a variety of factors may be relevant, including, 1) the time which has elapsed since interrogatories were served, 2) whether the party served was previously given a voluntary extension of time, 3) the number of interrogatories propounded, 4) whether the unanswered questions sought information which was difficult to obtain, 5) whether the answers supplied were evasive and incomplete, 6) the number of questions which remain unanswered, 7) whether the questions which remain unanswered are material to a particular claim or defense, 8) whether the answering party has acted in good faith, and with reasonable diligence, 9) the existence of prior orders compelling discovery and the answering party's response thereto, 10) whether the party was unable to comply with the previous order of the Court, 11) whether an order allowing more time to answer would enable the answering party to supply the necessary information, and, 12) whether a sanction short of dismissal or default would be appropriate to the dereliction.” (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at pp. 796, 797.) “Of course, each case must be decided on its own facts and, while lesser sanctions are normally imposed, the ultimate sanction is permissible where the litigant persists in refusing to comply with his discovery obligations.” (Ibid.)

The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) A terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the Court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful, and the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604–605.)

Here, applying an incremental approach, the Court finds it is premature to issue terminating sanctions. As such, Plaintiffs will once again be ordered to provide verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. In addition, further monetary sanctions will be awarded in favor of Longs, as discussed below. Terminating sanctions will be an appropriate next step should Plaintiffs continue in the refusal to provide responses.

The motions for orders that requests for admissions be admitted, will be granted.

Monetary Sanctions

Longs seeks $1,185.00 in monetary sanctions for having to bring the motion for terminating sanctions. Longs’ counsel charges $250 per hour for legal services rendered in this matter. (Conley Decl., ¶ 16.) The Court finds the hourly rate to be very reasonable. Longs’ counsel declares that he has spent 3 hours drafting the motion and preparing exhibits, and anticipates spending approximately 2.5 hours in reviewing opposition, preparing a reply, and attending the hearing. As there was no opposition, the Court will not grant fees for the entire estimated additional time. Monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,000.00 (3 hours for the motion and 1 hour to prepare for and attend the hearing) will be granted in favor of Longs and against Plaintiffs.

Longs also seeks $1,185.00 in monetary sanctions, for each motion, for having to bring the two motions to deem requests for admission, admitted. As the Court is granting the motion that the requests be deemed admitted, the Court finds that circumstances would make the additional imposition of monetary sanctions unjust as to those two motions.